On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:21:22 -0600
Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/25/2014 12:06 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 04/25/2014 09:05 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >>> Using error_is_set(errp) to check whether a function call failed is
> >>> fragile: it breaks when errp is null. I'm not aware of actual
> >>> breakage, but checking return values instead when convenient is more
> >>> robust and more obviously correct.
> >>>
>
> >>> handle = ga_get_fd_handle(ga_state, errp);
> >>> - if (error_is_set(errp)) {
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + if (handle < 0) {
> >>> + return -1;
> >>
> >> Is this a bug fix that should be pushed separately, or at least called
> >> out in the commit message as intentional?
> >
> > The return value is only used when no error has been set. So, it's at
> > worst a latent bug.
> >
>
> >
> > What about adding the following to the commit message:
> >
> > qga: Use return values instead of error_is_set(errp)
> >
> > Using error_is_set(errp) to check whether a function call failed is
> > fragile: it breaks when errp is null. ga_get_fd_handle() and
> > guest_file_handle_add() don't return a useful value when they fail,
> > but that's just stupid. Fix that, and check them instead. As far
> > as I can tell, errp can't be null there, but this is more robust and
> > more obviously correct.
>
> Works for me. I didn't spot anything else odd, so:
>
> Series: Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
Sorry to ask you something silly, but could you do that to the intro
email so that I don't miss it next week?
