Am 14.03.2013 um 16:52 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben: > On 03/14/13 15:57, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > > --- > > After rebasing this I saw that Anthony already committed a fix that is > > very close to my v1. I don't intend to actually change that code, but as > > I've already done this, just for comparison what it would look like with > > error propagation. Is this what you meant? I find the result more > > confusing, to be honest. > > I think what I had in mind was: > - I was okay with the logic change you suggested in your v1, just > - turn *errp accesses into local_err accesses, > - when returning, propagate the latter to the former. > > The logic seemed OK, I just suggested to keep the massage internal to > the function, only try to propagate it outwards at return time. IOW, > never read *errp.
So you would have used my local_err, but not ret_err? I don't think that would make it much better, ret_err is actually the nice part. Kevin
