On 05/11/2014 12:11, Max Reitz wrote: > > Of course I understand, but this patch doesn't make matters worse, as > long as there are not systems which have negative values for errno > (which I think we generally assume not to exist throughout qemu). That's > why I'm fine with it. We should fix the callers but I don't see why we > shouldn't apply this patch as well. > > A similar issue already came up and led to commit b276d2499, where > callers of error_setg_errno() assumed that it would not clobber errno, > so we fixed some of the callers but also applied that commit which just > saves errno because there's no reason not to.
I think side effect are a different matter than misuse of QEMU. There are "only" 157 calls to error_setg_errno; 67 use "errno" as the argument, and 4 use an explicit errno value (one of them is the wrong -EBUSY). The other 86 seem correct and should not be hard to audit. Let's instead add an assertion check to error_setg_errno. Paolo
