On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 02:47:34PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 06:38:50PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 02:09:39PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Both approaches would let us kill the error_propagate() calls. I think > > we're all agreed those would be better off gone, no matter which > > approach is used. > > Changing the return value of the 1500+ void functions that return errors > will take a very long while. I would like to get rid of the > error_propagate() calls before that, even if the long term plan is to > eventually get rid of ERR_IS_SET.
Ah, I see what you mean, that's fine. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|