From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48381) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFO7b-0005m0-8R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:20:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFO7U-0001GA-CB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:20:31 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5607) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFO7U-0001Fy-40 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:20:24 -0500 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1HDKLkx028843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:20:22 -0500 Message-ID: <53020C8A.6090806@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:20:10 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1392138233-26407-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1392138233-26407-10-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20140214164540.GK32343@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <20140214165954.GD17514@localhost.localdomain> <87d2io7l0e.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20140217131545.GA1428@T430.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140217131545.GA1428@T430.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 09/20] cow: correctly propagate errors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng , Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf , Jeff Cody , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 17/02/2014 14:15, Fam Zheng ha scritto: > Does this mean that error_is_set() is always used by programmer to check a > non-NULL error pointer? Is there any case to call error_is_set(errp) without > knowing if errp is NULL or not? If no, should we enforce the rule and add > assert(errp) in error_is_set()? I think we shouldn't need error_is_set() at all... Paolo