On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 05:45:40PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 11.02.2014 um 18:03 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
block/cow.c | 12 +++-
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
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:20:10PM +0100, 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
Am 17.02.2014 um 14:15 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 05:45:40PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 11.02.2014 um 18:03 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
Fam Zheng f...@redhat.com writes:
On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 05:45:40PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 11.02.2014 um 18:03 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
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
On Mon, 02/17 15:59, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Fam Zheng f...@redhat.com writes:
On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
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
Jeff Cody jc...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 05:45:40PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 11.02.2014 um 18:03 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
block/cow.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Am 11.02.2014 um 18:03 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
block/cow.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/cow.c b/block/cow.c
index 7fc0b12..43a2150 100644
--- a/block/cow.c
+++
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 05:45:40PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 11.02.2014 um 18:03 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
block/cow.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/cow.c
Il 14/02/2014 17:45, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
-ret = bdrv_file_open(cow_bs, filename, NULL, NULL, BDRV_O_RDWR,
- local_err);
+ret = bdrv_file_open(cow_bs, filename, NULL, NULL, BDRV_O_RDWR, errp);
if (ret 0) {
-qerror_report_err(local_err);
-
Am 14.02.2014 um 18:02 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
Il 14/02/2014 17:45, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
-ret = bdrv_file_open(cow_bs, filename, NULL, NULL, BDRV_O_RDWR,
- local_err);
+ret = bdrv_file_open(cow_bs, filename, NULL, NULL, BDRV_O_RDWR,
errp);
Il 14/02/2014 19:19, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
Eventually this function will return void; having both a -errno return
and the errp argument is just an intermediate step (as probably in all
other cases). So I still think this is going in the wrong direction and
will make the conversion harder than
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com
---
block/cow.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/cow.c b/block/cow.c
index 7fc0b12..43a2150 100644
--- a/block/cow.c
+++ b/block/cow.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int cow_open(BlockDriverState *bs,
14 matches
Mail list logo
