Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 02/10/21 13:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> The "return a boolean" rule adds some complexity (and
>>> a possibility for things to be wrong/inconsistent) to the function for
>>> the benefit of the callers.
>>
>> Yes, but returning something is only a minor burden. It
On 07/10/21 05:44, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
I notice that with Paolo's fix applied first and then Patch15 removing
the sanity checks out, machine_set_smp() at last simply becomes:
static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name,
void *opaque,
On 02/10/21 13:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
The "return a boolean" rule adds some complexity (and
a possibility for things to be wrong/inconsistent) to the function for
the benefit of the callers.
Yes, but returning something is only a minor burden. It also makes
success vs. failure obvious at
On 2021/10/2 19:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Paolo Bonzini writes:
On 01/10/21 19:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 01/10/21 19:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
const char *name,
On 01/10/21 19:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const
char *name,
return;
}
-smp_parse(ms, config,
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
>> > @@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
>> > const char *name,
>> > return;
>> > }
>> > -smp_parse(ms,
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
> > @@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
> > const char *name,
> > return;
> > }
> > -smp_parse(ms, config, errp);
> > -if (*errp) {
>
On 29/09/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
@@ -933,8 +935,7 @@ static void machine_set_smp(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const
char *name,
return;
}
-smp_parse(ms, config, errp);
-if (*errp) {
+if (!smp_parse(ms, config, errp)) {
Yanan Wang writes:
> Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
> "
> Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
> failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
> avoid useless error object creation and destruction. Note that
> we still
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:58:16AM +0800, Yanan Wang wrote:
> Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
> "
> Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
> failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
> avoid useless error object creation
On 9/29/21 04:58, Yanan Wang wrote:
> Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
> "
> Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
> failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
> avoid useless error object creation and destruction. Note
Quoting one of the Rules described in include/qapi/error.h:
"
Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
failure. This can make the error checking more concise, and can
avoid useless error object creation and destruction. Note that
we still have many functions returning
13 matches
Mail list logo
