From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53289)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1RBXkX-0003V9-4H
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:07:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1RBXkW-0003Pg-4E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:07:29 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4502)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1RBXkV-0003PX-LV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:07:28 -0400
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E8CB581.4030900@codemonkey.ws> (Anthony Liguori's message of
	"Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:52:33 -0500")
References: <cover.1316781876.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<5529f9bd516a73e64eb7f9761e85cd2240030dfd.1316781876.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<4E8B4B82.4080107@codemonkey.ws> <m3fwj8bo4z.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<4E8CB581.4030900@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:07:18 +0200
Message-ID: <m3ehyr6w3t.fsf@trasno.mitica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/11] migration: return real error code
Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 01:35 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  wrote:
>>> On 09/23/2011 07:50 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>>> make functions propaget errno, instead of just using -EIO.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela<quintela@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> qemu_file_has_error() implies a boolean response.  Wouldn't
>>> qemu_file_get_error() make more sense if you're going to rely on the
>>> return value?
>>
>> I just didn't want to change more things on the same patch.
>> I can add a patch on top of this series?
>
> It's terribly odd to make a function that looks like a bool return a
> non-boolean value.  It can't be that much of a change to do it in this
> patch, it's just a matter of running sed.

That is already fixed.  Problem was not doing that change, was to fix
the rejects after that on the following patches.

Later, Juan.