On 07/19/18 02:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 19 July 2018 at 06:15, Carsey, Jaben <[email protected]> wrote: >> Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey <[email protected]> >> >> One question (do hold up push). Is there a reason to use the former over the >> latter? I use latter and I see you use the former. >> >> ASSERT(EFI_ERROR (Status)); >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); >> > > The former asserts that an error has occurred, the latter does the opposite.
Right -- the latter is actually a misnomer; that macro should have always been called "ASSERT_NO_EFI_ERROR" :) > It seems Laszlo is using this to ensure we don't end up in the error > handling path if no error occurred. Sort of -- the way I put it for myself was, ensure that we don't exit on the error path without returning an error status to the caller. So it's less about control flow, and more about setting (or recognizing) error statuses at all locations that jump to the error path. But I guess that's just both sides of the same coin. :) Thanks Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
