On Mon, 02/17 15:59, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Fam Zheng 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 errp is
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 en
Fam Zheng writes:
> On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Jeff Cody 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
>> >> > ---
>> >> > block/cow.c | 12 +++-
Am 17.02.2014 um 14:15 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Jeff Cody 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
> > >>
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
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
On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Jeff Cody 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
> >> > ---
> >> > block/cow.c | 12 +++-
> >> > 1 file chang
Jeff Cody 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
>> > ---
>> > block/cow.c | 12 +++-
>> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/bl
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 ne
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,
>
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)
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
> > ---
> > block/cow.c | 12 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/cow.c b/block/cow.c
> > i
Am 11.02.2014 um 18:03 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
> ---
> 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
> @@ -8
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
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, QDict *options, int
14 matches
Mail list logo
