Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> writes: > 11.09.2020 18:22, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> writes: >> >>> 11.09.2020 14:21, Greg Kurz wrote: >>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:32 +0300 >>>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> wrote: [...] >>>>> Hmm.. With this series I understand the following: >>>>> >>>>> 1. It's no sense in simple applying scripts/coccinelle/errp-guard.cocci >>>>> to the whole code-base, because: >>>>> >>>>> - it produces a lot of "if (*errp)" in places where it is really >>>>> simple to avoid error propagation at all, like in this series >>>>> - reviewing is the hardest part of the process >>>>> >>>>> So, if we have to review these changes anyway, it's better to invest a >>>>> bit more time into patch creation, and make code correspond to our modern >>>>> error API recommendations. >> >> Yes, going the extra mile is better. >> >> I recommend it for code that is actively maintained. Making the code >> simpler and thus easier to maintain is an investment that'll pay off. >> >> We may have code where it won't pay off. Do you think a blind >> application of errp-guard.cocci might be better than nothing there? > > I think, careful review is needed anyway. And it may be too large effort for > dead (or almost dead) code. > So, let's start from popular subsystems. And make a decision for the rest > later.
Makes sense. [...]
