Thank you for all of your work, if necessary to send patch v3 for it
(may change the comments), please let me know.
Thanks.
On 06/25/2014 12:00 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 24.06.2014 15:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> Am 23.06.2014 um 17:28 hat Chen Gang geschrieben:
>>>> When failure occurs, 'ret' need be set, or may return 0 to indicate
>>>> success.
>>>> And error_propagate() also need be called only one time within a function.
>>>>
>>>> It is abnormal to prevent bdrv_append_temp_snapshot() return value but
>>>> still
>>>> set errp when error occurs -- although it contents return value internally.
>>>>
>>>> So let bdrv_append_temp_snapshot() internal return value outside, and let
>>>> all things normal, then fix the issue too.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> What does this fix?
>>
>> It fixes the return value of bdrv_open() when
>> bdrv_append_temp_snapshot() fails. Before this patch, it returns a
>> positive value, which is wrong. After the patch, it returns the
>> negative error code bdrv_append_temp_snapshot() now returns.
>
> So, what should be done there? Kevin, maybe you should pick this up
> instead of going -trivial route?
>
>>> Having both a return value and an Error* object is duplication and
>>> only a sign that a function hasn't been fully converted to the Error
>>> framework yet. We shouldn't introduce new instances of this without a
>>> very good reason.
>>
>> Maybe. But I very much prefer
>>
>> ret = foo(arg, errp);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> over
>>
>> Error *local_err = NULL;
>>
>> foo(arg, &local_err);
>> if (local_err) {
>> error_propagate(errp, local_err);
>> return;
>> }
>
> Yes, this new error propagation is a bit ugly, I dislike it too.
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
>
--
Chen Gang
Open share and attitude like air water and life which God blessed
