Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:45:13PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:19:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: >> >> On Tue, 08/16 20:17, Peter Xu wrote: >> >> > > Do we really need error_report_exit when we already have error_fatal? >> >> > >> >> > error_fatal is the name of a global var, not the function. >> >> >> >> I mean most error_report_exit(...) calls can be converted to >> >> error_setg(&error_fatal, ...). >> > >> > Right. But it's just another way to implement error_report_fatal(). We >> > may still need error_report_fatal() since it's cleaner and shorter >> > than error_setg(&error_fatal, ...). >> >> Fam's point that >> >> error_report_fatal(...); >> >> is just another way to write >> >> error_setg(&error_fatal, ...) >> >> is valid. Your point that the former is shorter and simpler is also >> valid. In fact, error.h advises: >> >> * Please don't error_setg(&error_fatal, ...), use error_report() and >> * exit(), because that's more obvious. >> * Likewise, don't error_setg(&error_abort, ...), use assert(). >> >> Could you convert the existing error_setg(&error_fatal, ...) to >> error_report_fatal(...)? >> >> Regarding error_report_abort(): in my opinion, printing pretty messages >> right before abort() is largely a waste of time. But if people insist >> on doing it, then the error subsystem may have to support it. Would you >> be willing to track down such usage, so we can make an informed >> decision? > > Sure. :) > > Yes I see usages for error_setg(&error_abort, ...), it makes sense to > provide error_report_abort() along with error_report_fatal(). Will > take your (and Fam's) advice.
Recommend to make it a separate patch. > Thanks for your comments! You're welcome!
