On 03/14/13 15:57, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > --- > After rebasing this I saw that Anthony already committed a fix that is > very close to my v1. I don't intend to actually change that code, but as > I've already done this, just for comparison what it would look like with > error propagation. Is this what you meant? I find the result more > confusing, to be honest.
I think what I had in mind was: - I was okay with the logic change you suggested in your v1, just - turn *errp accesses into local_err accesses, - when returning, propagate the latter to the former. The logic seemed OK, I just suggested to keep the massage internal to the function, only try to propagate it outwards at return time. IOW, never read *errp. Laszlo
