Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] usb-mtp: fix return status of delete

[Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 16:43, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 16:14, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Generally, if you have multiple bits X, Y in a return
>> > value, they should be independent. Sometimes we define
>> > a convenience value Z that's X | Y, but then Z should
>> > have a name that indicates that it's really doing both
>> > X and Y (for instance often a READWRITE constant will
>> > be READ | WRITE). In this case, I don't see why
>> > PARTIAL_DELETE would be a sensible name to indicate
>> > "both ALL_DELETE and also READ_ONLY" -- if we only
>> > partially did a delete why do we set the ALL_DELETE bit ?
>> >
>>
>> Because during a recursive call, we were able to successfully
>> delete objects(s) for the previous call but for "this"
>> set of objects, it failed which is supposed to return a
>> partial_delete back.
>>
>> Does simply "DELETE" instead of "ALL_DELETE" seem less
>> confusing ? I definitely want to keep PARTIAL_DELETE the
>> way it is simply because it's easier to refer back
>> to the spec that way.
>
> I think this would be easier to answer if you answered
> this question:
>
>> > It might be useful to take a step back -- what are
>> > the different possible outcomes from this function that
>> > we need to distinguish, and when should we be returning
>> > which outcome?
>
They are what the variable names signify.

> thanks
> -- PMM