Hi Laine, I am sure that I did --subject-prefix , not sure why it did not landed.
Now am wondering about this situation do I still need a PATCH-3 or it's handled ? Thanks for giving your one last pass! Best Regards Gaurav On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 22:46 Laine Stump <la...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2/25/20 7:37 AM, Ján Tomko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:09:05PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote: > >> On 2/24/20 1:58 PM, Gaurav Agrawal wrote: > >> > > > > Yes, networkSetupPrivateChains is only called once (via virOnce, as > > suggested by the comment on the top of the function) on initialization > > and if either IPv4 or IPv6 chains could not be created, it sets the > > dirver-global error, which is then called on any subsequent attempt > > to use it. > > > > So this is not really a case that needs to be converted. > > In fact, glancing at git gre virSetError it seems we already got rid > > of all the ones worth converting. > > > I could have sworn that when I looked last night there were a handful of > virSaveLastError() calls, and that I looked at one that was paired with > virSetError(). But when I look now I see that all the virSaveLastError() > calls remaining are strange "save this for later" type things rather > than "save this for a second while we clean up the mess". > > > It looks like jferlan pushed a bunch of patches in Dec 2018 to do all > the valid replacements, but the item was never removed from the > bite-sized tasks list (he might have fixed them without even knowing > about the item on the list). I just went to the wiki to remove it and > see that Jano has already taken care of it! > > > > > > > >> > >> Your patch has replaced the virSaveLastError() of the earlier part > >> with virErrorPreserveLast(), but hasn't replaced the virSetError() of > >> the later part (which is down in networkAddFirewallRules()) with > >> virErrorRestore(). > > > > virErrorRestore resets the error, which is not what we want here - > > any subsequent calls should report the same error we caught when > > initializing. > > > Yeah, I realized that was probably the case in the middle of the night > last night, but wasn't at the keyboard to chastise myself. I knew I > should have just gone to bed instead of sitting down for one last pass... > > > But anyway the upside is that Guarav got git send-email configured > properly to send future patches (while we're on the topic of workflow - > when you send a modified/updated version of a patch, be sure to note > that in the subject, e.g. with "--subject-prefix="PATCHv2"). > > > >