Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> writes:
> 08.10.2019 12:39, Greg Kurz wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:41:08 +0000
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 08.10.2019 10:30, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a proposal of auto propagation for local_err, to not call
>>>>> error_propagate on every exit point, when we deal with local_err.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are also two issues with errp:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. error_fatal & error_append_hint/error_prepend: user can't see this
>>>>> additional info, because exit() happens in error_setg earlier than info
>>>>> is added. [Reported by Greg Kurz]
>>>>
>>>> How is this series related to Greg's "[PATCH 00/17] Fix usage of
>>>> error_append_hint()"? Do we need both?
>>>
>>> These series is a substitution for Greg's. Still, there are problems with
>>> automation, which Greg pointed in 21/31, and I don't know what to do next.
>>>
>>> May be, just continue to review patches and fix them by hand. May be try to
>>> improve automation...
>>>
>>
>> The feeling I have after working on my series is that the lines that deal
>> with errors are mixed up with the functional code in a variety of ways.
>> That makes it very difficult if not impossible to come with code patterns
>> suitable for a 100% automated solution IMHO.
>>
>> My questioning is more around the semantics of error_fatal actually. What
>> does passing &error_fatal gives us over passing &local_err and calling
>> error_report_err()+exit(), apart from breaking error_append_hint() and
>> error_prepend() ?
>
> As I understand, the only benefit is one line instead of four:
Brevity matters when it comes to error handling.
> func(..., &error_fatal);
>
> instead of
>
> func(..., &local_err);
> if (local_err) {
error_report_err(local_err);
> exit(1);
> }
[...]
