On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 05:19:56PM -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> - Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> > We can do some effort to document the preferred convention to
> > return success/failure, but I don't think we will be able to
> > convert the existing void/ret/bool functions to a single styl
- Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> We can do some effort to document the preferred convention to
> return success/failure, but I don't think we will be able to
> convert the existing void/ret/bool functions to a single style
> (whatever it is) in a reasonable time.
>
> That said, IMO returning
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:34:39PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/18/2018 09:55 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2018 12:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> I'm not a fan of bool return types, in general (because "!" i
On 01/18/2018 09:55 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 18/01/2018 12:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
I'm not a fan of bool return types, in general (because "!" is often
success while "< 0" is failure) and especially when the
On 18/01/2018 16:55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 18/01/2018 12:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
I'm not a fan of bool return types, in general (because "!" is often
success while "< 0" is failure) and especially when there
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/01/2018 12:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> I'm not a fan of bool return types, in general (because "!" is often
>>> success while "< 0" is failure) and especially when there is an Error**;
>>> I disagree with commit 9d3b155186. B
On 18/01/2018 12:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> I'm not a fan of bool return types, in general (because "!" is often
>> success while "< 0" is failure) and especially when there is an Error**;
>> I disagree with commit 9d3b155186. But the function is not in an area I
>> maintain so I'm queui
On 01/18/2018 05:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/01/2018 03:52, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> Coverity doesn't like the ignored return value introduced in
>> 9d3b155186c278 (hw/block: Fix the return type), and other callers are
>> converted already in ceff3e1f01.
>>
>> This one was added lately in d9bcd6
On 18/01/2018 03:52, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Coverity doesn't like the ignored return value introduced in
> 9d3b155186c278 (hw/block: Fix the return type), and other callers are
> converted already in ceff3e1f01.
>
> This one was added lately in d9bcd6f7f23a and missed the train. Do it
> now.
>
> Sign
On 01/17/2018 11:52 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Coverity doesn't like the ignored return value introduced in
> 9d3b155186c278 (hw/block: Fix the return type), and other callers are
> converted already in ceff3e1f01.
>
> This one was added lately in d9bcd6f7f23a and missed the train. Do it
> now.
>
> S
Coverity doesn't like the ignored return value introduced in
9d3b155186c278 (hw/block: Fix the return type), and other callers are
converted already in ceff3e1f01.
This one was added lately in d9bcd6f7f23a and missed the train. Do it
now.
Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
---
hw/scsi/scsi-generic.c | 9
11 matches
Mail list logo
