On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:18:05PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:39:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 28/06/2017 11:05, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > If foo() additionally returned an indication of success, you could write
> > >
> > > if (!foo(arg, errp)) { // assuming foo() returns a bool
> > > handle the error...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Nicely concise.
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, this is how GLib wants GError to be used. We
> > > deviated from it, and it has turned out to be a self-inflicted wound.
> > >
> >
> > I find Eduardo's proposal better. With GLib's way it's easy to confuse
> > functions that return 0/-1, 0/-errno, TRUE/FALSE, FALSE/TRUE or
> > NULL/non-NULL.
>
> NB, glib basically standardizes on just FALSE/TRUE and NULL/non-NULL,
> avoiding anything returning -1, or errno values, so in their usage
> there isn't really any confusion.
>
> QEMU of course has lots of pre-existing code, but we could at least
> declare a preferred approach, and work towards it.
>
> Having the return value indicate error is slightly shorter, and it
> avoids all the blackmagic with special Error values in Eduardo's
> series. Most usefully, it lets you use __attribute__(return_check)
> to get compile time checking of callers who forget to check for
> failure.
I agree it's better when the return value is obvious, but I still think
the Error value magic in IGNORE_ERRORS/ERR_IS_SET is preferable to the
existing 700+ error_propagate() calls in the tree.
--
Eduardo
