"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 03:54:37PM +0800, Mao Zhongyi wrote:
>> On success, pci_add_capability2() returns a positive value. On
>> failure, it sets an error and return a negative value.
>>
>> pci_add_capability() laboriously checks this behavior. No other
>> caller does. Drop the checks from pci_add_capability().
>>
>> Cc: m...@redhat.com
>> Cc: mar...@redhat.com
>> Cc: arm...@redhat.com
>> Signed-off-by: Mao Zhongyi <maozy.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/pci/pci.c | 6 +-----
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> index 98ccc27..53566b8 100644
>> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -2270,12 +2270,8 @@ int pci_add_capability(PCIDevice *pdev, uint8_t
>> cap_id,
>> Error *local_err = NULL;
>>
>> ret = pci_add_capability2(pdev, cap_id, offset, size, &local_err);
>> - if (local_err) {
>> - assert(ret < 0);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> error_report_err(local_err);
>> - } else {
>> - /* success implies a positive offset in config space */
>> - assert(ret > 0);
>> }
>> return ret;
>> }
>
>
> I don't see why this is a good idea. You drop a bunch of
> asserts, so naturally code is slightly tighter. We could gain
> the same by building with NDEBUG but we don't, we rather
> have more safety.
It's a good idea because it's what we do basically everywhere when a
function sets an error and returns a distinct error value.
