> On 13 Sep 2016, at 00:30, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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!
Thanks,
Lars
