Il 13/07/2012 19:30, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
>>> >> - if (errp == NULL) {
>>> >> + if (errp == NULL || *errp != NULL) {
>> >
>> > I think we should use assert() here.
>> >
>> > If the error is already set, that most probably indicates a bug in the
>> > caller, as
>> > it's the caller's responsibility to decide which error to return.
> I believe we had a good argument against this, but I can't precisely
> recall (or find) it now. Paolo, do you remember? Can you please both
> search your respective mailboxen for Message-ID
> <4fb21b71.7030...@redhat.com>? That's where we started to discuss this.
>
> I believe I saw some paths in the code that tripped on this leak, and
> generally keeping the first error seemed like a good idea.
> opts_end_struct() originally checked for any pre-existent error
> explicitly, but then the check was moved to the common code.
The reason to do this for error_propagate was to allow this idiom:
/* Always call end_struct if start_struct succeeded. */
error_propagate(errp, err);
err = NULL;
visit_end_struct(v, &err);
error_propagate(errp, err);
I think doing it for error_set was just for symmetry and to avoid
introducing excessive complexity.
Paolo
