"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjo...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:06:21PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjo...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:02:39PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> libssh2_session_last_error() already returns the error code.
>> >>
>> >> Cc: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjo...@redhat.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> block/ssh.c | 9 ++++-----
>> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/block/ssh.c b/block/ssh.c
>> >> index aa63c9d..e38d232 100644
>> >> --- a/block/ssh.c
>> >> +++ b/block/ssh.c
>> >> @@ -121,10 +121,9 @@ session_error_report(BDRVSSHState *s, const char
>> >> *fs, ...)
>> >> char *ssh_err;
>> >> int ssh_err_code;
>> >>
>> >> - libssh2_session_last_error((s)->session, &ssh_err, NULL, 0);
>> >> /* This is not an errno. See <libssh2.h>. */
>> >> - ssh_err_code = libssh2_session_last_errno((s)->session);
>> >> -
>> >> + ssh_err_code = libssh2_session_last_error(s->session,
>> >> + &ssh_err, NULL, 0);
>> >> error_printf(": %s (libssh2 error code: %d)", ssh_err,
>> >> ssh_err_code);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> @@ -145,9 +144,9 @@ sftp_error_report(BDRVSSHState *s, const char *fs,
>> >> ...)
>> >> int ssh_err_code;
>> >> unsigned long sftp_err_code;
>> >>
>> >> - libssh2_session_last_error((s)->session, &ssh_err, NULL, 0);
>> >> /* This is not an errno. See <libssh2.h>. */
>> >> - ssh_err_code = libssh2_session_last_errno((s)->session);
>> >> + ssh_err_code = libssh2_session_last_error(s->session,
>> >> + &ssh_err, NULL, 0);
>> >> /* See <libssh2_sftp.h>. */
>> >> sftp_err_code = libssh2_sftp_last_error((s)->sftp);
>> >
>> > Yes, I'm not quite sure what was happening here. I checked the source
>> > of libssh2 and as you say, libssh2_session_last_error returns the
>> > error code, so there is no need to call libssh2_session_last_errno as
>> > well.
>> >
>> > Therefore, ACK.
>>
>> Did you review the patch? If yes, I'd like to convert your ACK to a
>> formal Reviewed-by. Same for PATCH 06-09.
>
> Yes, I applied all 5 of them to qemu.git, compiled it and also checked
> over the patches.
>
> So ACK to all of them.
>
> Do I need to do something else?
We're pretty formal about commit tags on this list.
We interpret "Acked-by" conservatively. Something like "this patch
touches stuff I'm responsible for, I'm aware of the patch, and I don't
object to it".
To say "I reviewed this patch, and I think it's ready for commit", we
use "Reviewed-by".
"ACK" is neither, so I asked for clarification :)
