On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:01:08PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Markus Armbruster (arm...@redhat.com) wrote: > > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> writes: > > > > The problem is that our way of propagating errors actively discourages > > > people from adding errors and you're left with lots of useless invented > > > errno's. > > > error_report makes it easy for people to scatter meaningful error messages > > > in at any point. > > > > > > Make an easy, concise way of reporting an error that fits in with > > > a propagation scheme and I'd consider converting stuff. > > > > error_setg(errp, "This is as simple as it gets, I'm afraid") > > > > Snark aside, I acknowledge the pain of converting call chains to > > propagate Error objects, having converted "a few" myself. > > If you can get it down to that line it would be great! > > But unfortunately it isn't: > a) I have to make sure my cleanup path after that error_setg doesn't > cause any other errors because that breaks the rule > that I can't call error_setg twice.
> b) I've got to put the whole local_err/error_propagate stuff all over. > > c) We insist on allowing the Err ** pointer to be NULL that > removes some potential simplifications. This last point is one i really dislike - if we could mandate that the error parameters was non-NULL, it will eliminate alot of the need to use local_err/error_propagate, as you could just check if (*errp), and so largely solve (b). Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
