On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:37:17PM +0000, Victor Toso wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 02:57:21PM +0300, Yuri Benditovich wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:35 PM Victor Toso <victort...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:31:37PM +0300, Yuri Benditovich wrote: > > > > libusb has libusb_error_name procedure that returns name > > > > for any error that libusb may return, so we do not need > > > > to analyze error values by ourselves. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yuri Benditovich <yuri.benditov...@daynix.com> > > > > > > Before applying the series: > > > > > > (master 15e06ead) $ grepi "spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror" src/ > > > src/win-usb-dev.c:116: const char *errstr = > > > spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(rc); > > > src/win-usb-dev.c:173: const char *errstr = > > > spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(rc); > > > src/channel-usbredir.c:312: spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(rc), rc); > > > src/usbutil.c:62:const char *spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(enum > > > libusb_error error_code) > > > src/usbutil.h:31:const char *spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(enum > > > libusb_error error_code); > > > src/usb-device-manager.c:284: const char *desc = > > > spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(rc); > > > src/usb-device-manager.c:311: const char *desc = > > > spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(rc); > > > src/usb-device-manager.c:733: errstr = > > > spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(errcode); > > > src/usb-device-manager.c:1071: const char *desc = > > > spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror(rc); > > > > > > After applying the series: > > > (yuri-usb-b-layers-v1 5f87d90d) $ grepi "spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror" > > > src/ > > > (yuri-usb-b-layers-v1 5f87d90d) $ > > > > > > So, I think it makes sense to use this patch to drop this > > > function and always use libusb_error_name() instead, agree? > > > > Finally, this series drops this functions and uses libusb_error_name. > > Yes, > > > It was possible to drop this function in the first patch, but > > this would not make too much sense ( as all these new calls to > > libusb_error_name() would be removed due to isolation of > > libusb). > > For me it makes sense because I know that this function can be > dropped now even if later patches would change the code path of > callers of spice_usbutil_libusb_strerror/libusb_error_name again. > > That is, removing this function as first patch would introduce no > regression and cleanup the code a bit. One patch less in the > queue and could be merged before the others ;)
Yep, makes sense to me too to start by making the code simpler, and merging the preparatory patches early. Christophe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
