On 03/15/13 09:37, Kevin Wolf wrote: > 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?
Something like that, yes. > I don't think that > would make it much better, Not contesting that ;) > ret_err is actually the nice part. Anyway I'm not feeling strongly about this and I don't want to waste your time with it. It was just a note in passing. (... Which I should probably refrain from, lest I waste people's time.) L.
