On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 06:14:02PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 03:54:37PM +0800, Mao Zhongyi wrote: > >> On success, pci_add_capability2() returns a positive value. On > >> failure, it sets an error and return a negative value. > >> > >> pci_add_capability() laboriously checks this behavior. No other > >> caller does. Drop the checks from pci_add_capability(). > >> > >> Cc: m...@redhat.com > >> Cc: mar...@redhat.com > >> Cc: arm...@redhat.com > >> Signed-off-by: Mao Zhongyi <maozy.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> hw/pci/pci.c | 6 +----- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c > >> index 98ccc27..53566b8 100644 > >> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c > >> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c > >> @@ -2270,12 +2270,8 @@ int pci_add_capability(PCIDevice *pdev, uint8_t > >> cap_id, > >> Error *local_err = NULL; > >> > >> ret = pci_add_capability2(pdev, cap_id, offset, size, &local_err); > >> - if (local_err) { > >> - assert(ret < 0); > >> + if (ret < 0) { > >> error_report_err(local_err); > >> - } else { > >> - /* success implies a positive offset in config space */ > >> - assert(ret > 0); > >> } > >> return ret; > >> } > > > > > > I don't see why this is a good idea. You drop a bunch of > > asserts, so naturally code is slightly tighter. We could gain > > the same by building with NDEBUG but we don't, we rather > > have more safety. > > It's a good idea because it's what we do basically everywhere when a > function sets an error and returns a distinct error value.
We typically just do if (local_err) { error_report_err(local_err); ... }