> On 13 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>> 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

Reply via email to