Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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
>>> +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?
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.