From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32934) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YyKq0-0005Py-Tk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 10:00:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YyKpu-0007qH-Pd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 10:00:40 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43037) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YyKpu-0007q6-Ju for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2015 10:00:34 -0400 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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 207B11BE37D for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:00:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <556870FC.3020806@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:00:28 -0600 From: Eric Blake MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1432815695-31687-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <20150529085154.GB3804@noname.redhat.com> <877frr4oig.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <877frr4oig.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="X0Fbh3Gw5TlFij9VkIJIeS0N8l8e8Ma6K" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/9] Miscellaneous error reporting improvements List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster , Kevin Wolf Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --X0Fbh3Gw5TlFij9VkIJIeS0N8l8e8Ma6K Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/29/2015 05:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Kevin Wolf writes: >=20 >> Am 28.05.2015 um 14:21 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >>> Touches vl.c, which gives me pretext to ask Paolo: would you be >>> willing to take this through your tree? Or should I take it through >>> mine? >> >> After this series we have an ugly half-converted state where >> qemu_opts_foreach() has both a return code and an Error object, >> and it's not generally true that an error is set for a failing >> return code. >> >> The most confusing part about this is that you have &error_abort almos= t >> everywhere, but the function doesn't actually abort on error, but rath= er >> returns a negative error code and leaves errp alone. >=20 > True. The function contract spells it out, which hopefully reduces the= > confusion somewhat. Except that you don't enforce the contract; I suggested adding assert(!*errp) at the right place in the two conversions. >=20 > Would you find NULL less confusing than &error_abort? NULL says to ignore errors, &error_abort says to diagnose errors as programming bugs. If we know we aren't going to have an error, I prefer diagnosing coding bugs. --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --X0Fbh3Gw5TlFij9VkIJIeS0N8l8e8Ma6K Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVaHD8AAoJEKeha0olJ0Nqjj4IAJVOX7zutIEsPlQ5nEKfwmEZ mP73G5ZXySAeA9XXuLZSyLNohJm9YB2FcgPTCUqo6lJ78bQLgpZH0tjdXFi5H0ZY Snydsx25MdACf9fCHIOE5UYFdsYnHCJe4u6IwbbKu1aGzjAyu3+GIrRYcmLu0QhW cq0/CDN7P3sDNIiYr4HB3ZVnSnYlFN+o/LnR1jsRIp4n6RZ1FlbPLdtOF1P7yWUO NFdQiunxeX1CLjxshGqtbbAikt1r8YwF2/zQw0a8zGKuAAAQxrC+h7Pukk2QMTi8 Sx8hTEAQbdbuqPYqsJaxYspFobl77NGcmYKZqdWIYCIfbxD3lvGpz0XiAc7W14Y= =Fw8l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --X0Fbh3Gw5TlFij9VkIJIeS0N8l8e8Ma6K--