On 2013-10-19 10:05, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 18.10.2013 um 19:59 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
Then there's still the problem that I'm not the one who introduced
error_propagate. Someone obviously intended some purpose for it, so
even if it doesn't make a difference now (and my RFC is unneeded),
I'd s
Il 18/10/2013 19:59, Max Reitz ha scritto:
> Someone obviously intended some purpose for it, so even if it doesn't
> make a difference now (and my RFC is unneeded), I'd still use it to
> propagate errors (instead of passing the error pointer). My point being
> that there *is* a function for propaga
Am 18.10.2013 um 19:59 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> Then there's still the problem that I'm not the one who introduced
> error_propagate. Someone obviously intended some purpose for it, so
> even if it doesn't make a difference now (and my RFC is unneeded),
> I'd still use it to propagate errors (i
On 2013-10-18 10:51, Fam Zheng wrote:
On Thu, 10/17 15:00, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 17.10.2013 um 14:49 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:56:49PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
On 2013-10-15 04:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
The reason I object it here is that error_propagate *currently*
On Thu, 10/17 15:00, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 17.10.2013 um 14:49 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:56:49PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > On 2013-10-15 04:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > The reason I object it here is that error_propagate *currently* is a
> > > no-op. But thi
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 03:00:23PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 17.10.2013 um 14:49 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:56:49PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > On 2013-10-15 04:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > The reason I object it here is that error_propagate *currently* is a
Am 17.10.2013 um 14:49 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:56:49PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> > On 2013-10-15 04:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > The reason I object it here is that error_propagate *currently* is a
> > no-op. But this may change in the future: I have already sent a
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:56:49PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> However, this is not the reason I'd object a patch doing
> something different (here: dropping the unused backing_filename
> code)
BTW I agree with this. This should be a separate patch.
Stefan
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:56:49PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 2013-10-15 04:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
> The reason I object it here is that error_propagate *currently* is a
> no-op. But this may change in the future: I have already sent an RFC
> which extends error_propagate so it can generate an erro
On 2013-10-15 04:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
There is errp passed in, so no need for local_err and error_propagate.
Also drop the backing_filename which is set but unused since 34b5d2c.
I approve of dropping the backing_filename code, but I don't know if I
like removing the error_propagate.
I perso
On Mon, 10/14 21:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 08:23 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > There is errp passed in, so no need for local_err and error_propagate.
> > Also drop the backing_filename which is set but unused since 34b5d2c.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
> >
> > --
>
> Three dashes ins
On 10/14/2013 08:23 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> There is errp passed in, so no need for local_err and error_propagate.
> Also drop the backing_filename which is set but unused since 34b5d2c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
>
> --
Three dashes instead of two before 'git am' will notice that the rest of
There is errp passed in, so no need for local_err and error_propagate.
Also drop the backing_filename which is set but unused since 34b5d2c.
Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
--
v2: fix typo in subject line.
drop backing_filename.
(Thanks Eric)
Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
---
block/mirror.c | 7 +
13 matches
Mail list logo
