On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 15:13, Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> I'll be out starting tomorrow. I don't see Marc-André online.
>
> Would this be acceptable?
> It ensures that if error_handle() returns, err has been freed.
> In the other two cases a copy is being made of the Error that can then be
> used after the error_handle() call.
"Not error_warn" is the common case, so it doesn't seem
great to copy the error around like that. My thoughts were
either:
(1) error_handle() should handle all of the error cases,
like this:
if (errp == &error_abort) {
...
abort();
}
if (errp == &error_fatal) {
...
exit(1);
}
if (errp = &error_warn) {
warn_report_err(err);
} else if (errp && !*errp) {
*errp = err;
} else {
error_free(err);
}
and delete the "set *errp" logic from the callers.
(note that error_setv() has done checks already that mean it
will always take the "(errp && !*errp)" path, so we don't need
to special-case for which caller this was.)
(2) error_handle() should return a bool to say whether it's handled
the error entirely and the callsite should do nothing further
with it.
I prefer (1) I think but would defer to people with more
experience with the Error APIs.
thanks
-- PMM
