On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:01:47AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 17:20:25 +0100 > Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 07/07/17 16:07, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > >> looks fine, > > >> > > >> so what I'd do is: > > >> * drop 4/6 > > > > Yes. > > > > > Agreed on this point. But: > > > > > >> * make fw_cfg_find() use ambiguous argument and error_abort if > > >> ambiguous == true > > > > During my latest tests I've found that everything works fine without the > > ambiguous argument. > > > > Do we still want to keep it? And I don't think error_abort() is the > > right thing to do here, I'd much rather return NULL and add a suitable > > comment. > I'd still use ambiguous argument and since you prefer not to assert > I'd add errp argument to fw_cfg_find() and handle error at callsites. > > Just returning NULL isn't sufficient if you need to distinguish > 'not found' vs 'duplicate' usecases, additionally 'not found' > in most cases isn't even error but 'duplicate' definitely is. > > Aborting on diplicate in fw_cfg_find() is fine and would > help to avoid touching current callers if you wish to limit > patches scope, but you can go with proper error propagating > route if you wish.
Just making realize refuse to create two devices sounds much simpler to me. No need to make fw_cfg_find() more complex (if we add errp argument to it) or less useful (if we add assert(!ambiguous) to it). -- Eduardo
