> On 13 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Lars Schneider <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> On 13 Sep 2016, at 00:30, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>
>>>> From: Lars Schneider <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> packet_flush() would die in case of a write error even though for some
>>>> callers an error would be acceptable. Add packet_flush_gently() which
>>>> writes a pkt-line flush packet and returns `0` for success and `-1` for
>>>> failure.
>>>> ...
>>>> +int packet_flush_gently(int fd)
>>>> +{
>>>> + packet_trace("0000", 4, 1);
>>>> + if (write_in_full(fd, "0000", 4) == 4)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + error("flush packet write failed");
>>>> + return -1;
>>>
>>> It is more idiomatic to do
>>>
>>> return error(...);
>>>
>>> but more importantly, does the caller even want an error message
>>> unconditionally printed here?
>>>
>>> I suspect that it is a strong sign that the caller wants to be in
>>> control of when and what error message is produced; otherwise it
>>> wouldn't be calling the _gently() variant, no?
>>
>> Agreed!
>
> I am also OK with the current form, too. Those who need to enhance
> it to packet_flush_gently(int fd, int quiet) can come later.
"caller wants to be in control [...] otherwise it wouldn't be calling
the _gently() variant" convinced me. I would like to change it like
this:
trace_printf_key(&trace_packet, "flush packet write failed");
return -1;
Objections?
Thanks,
Lars
