On Mon, 02/17 14:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 17/02/2014 14:15, Fam Zheng ha scritto: > >Does this mean that error_is_set() is always used by programmer to check a > >non-NULL error pointer? Is there any case to call error_is_set(errp) without > >knowing if errp is NULL or not? If no, should we enforce the rule and add > >assert(errp) in error_is_set()? > > I think we shouldn't need error_is_set() at all... >
Thinking about both use cases (errp is NULL or not) and I agree to this. Fam