Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 02/10/21 13:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> The "return a boolean" rule adds some complexity (and
>>> a possibility for things to be wrong/inconsistent) to the function for
>>> the benefit of the callers.
>>
>> Yes, but returning something is only a minor burden. It a
On 07/10/21 05:44, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
I notice that with Paolo's fix applied first and then Patch15 removing
the sanity checks out, machine_set_smp() at last simply becomes:
static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name,
void *opaque, Error
On 02/10/21 13:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
The "return a boolean" rule adds some complexity (and
a possibility for things to be wrong/inconsistent) to the function for
the benefit of the callers.
Yes, but returning something is only a minor burden. It also makes
success vs. failure obvious at
On 2021/10/2 19:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini writes:
On 01/10/21 19:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v, cons
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 01/10/21 19:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
const char *name,
ret
On 01/10/21 19:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const
char *name,
return;
}
-smp_parse(ms, config, err
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
>> > @@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
>> > const char *name,
>> > return;
>> > }
>> > -smp_parse(ms, con
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
> > @@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
> > const char *name,
> > return;
> > }
> > -smp_parse(ms, config, errp);
> > -if (*errp) {
> >
On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const
char *name,
return;
}
-smp_parse(ms, config, errp);
-if (*errp) {
+if (!smp_parse(ms, config, errp)) {
qapi_free_SMPConfiguration(config);
Yanan Wang writes:
> Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
> "
> Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
> failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
> avoid useless error object creation and destruction. Note that
> we still h
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:58:16AM +0800, Yanan Wang wrote:
> Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
> "
> Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
> failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
> avoid useless error object creation a
On 9/29/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
> Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
> "
> Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
> failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
> avoid useless error object creation and destruction. Note th
Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
"
Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
avoid useless error object creation and destruction. Note that
we still have many functions returning void
13 matches
Mail list logo
