On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:32 +0300
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
11.09.2020 12:38, Greg Kurz wrote:
s/startus/status
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 21:59:27 +0300
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
It's better to return status together with setting errp. It makes
possible to avoid error propagation.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
---
block/qcow2.h | 2 +-
block/qcow2-bitmap.c | 13 ++++++-------
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/qcow2.h b/block/qcow2.h
index e7e662533b..49824be5c6 100644
--- a/block/qcow2.h
+++ b/block/qcow2.h
@@ -972,7 +972,7 @@ bool qcow2_get_bitmap_info_list(BlockDriverState *bs,
Qcow2BitmapInfoList **info_list, Error
**errp);
int qcow2_reopen_bitmaps_rw(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp);
int qcow2_truncate_bitmaps_check(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp);
-void qcow2_store_persistent_dirty_bitmaps(BlockDriverState *bs,
+bool qcow2_store_persistent_dirty_bitmaps(BlockDriverState *bs,
bool release_stored, Error **errp);
int qcow2_reopen_bitmaps_ro(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp);
bool qcow2_co_can_store_new_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState *bs,
diff --git a/block/qcow2-bitmap.c b/block/qcow2-bitmap.c
index f58923fce3..5eeff1cb1c 100644
--- a/block/qcow2-bitmap.c
+++ b/block/qcow2-bitmap.c
@@ -1524,9 +1524,10 @@ out:
* readonly to begin with, and whether we opened directly or reopened to that
* state shouldn't matter for the state we get afterward.
*/
-void qcow2_store_persistent_dirty_bitmaps(BlockDriverState *bs,
+bool qcow2_store_persistent_dirty_bitmaps(BlockDriverState *bs,
bool release_stored, Error **errp)
{
+ ERRP_GUARD();
Maybe worth mentioning in the changelog that this ERRP_GUARD() fixes
an error_prepend(errp, ...) not visible in the patch context.
Ah yes. Actually this is occasional thing I didn't want to include into this
patch
(and int this part I). So we can just drop it and leave for part II or part III,
or add a note into commit message
Anyway,
Reviewed-by: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
Thanks a lot for reviewing :)
Don't mention it :)
Hmm.. With this series I understand the following:
1. It's no sense in simple applying scripts/coccinelle/errp-guard.cocci to the
whole code-base, because:
- it produces a lot of "if (*errp)" in places where it is really simple to
avoid error propagation at all, like in this series
- reviewing is the hardest part of the process
So, if we have to review these changes anyway, it's better to invest a bit more
time into patch creation, and make code correspond to our modern error API
recommendations.
2. So, the process turns into following steps:
- apply scripts/coccinelle/errp-guard.cocci
- look through patches and do obvious refactorings (like this series)
- keep ERRP_GUARD where necessary (appending info to error, or where
refactoring of function return status is too invasive and not simple)
I've started to follow this process for the spapr code and, indeed, I
can come up with better changes by refactoring some code manually.
Some of these changes are not that obvious that they could be made
by someone who doesn't know the code, so I tend to agree with your
arguments in 1.
This is also the reason I didn't review patches 10, 13 and 14 because
they looked like I should understand the corresponding code a bit more.
3. Obviously, that's too much for me :) Of course, I will invest some time into
making the series like this one, and reviewing them, but I can't do it for
weeks and months. (My original сunning plan to simply push ~100 generated
commits with my s-o-b and become the greatest contributor failed:)
Ha ha :D ... as a consolation prize, maybe we can reach a fair number
of r-b by reviewing each other's _simple_ cleanups ;-)
The good thing is that now, with ERRP_GUARD finally merged, we can produce
parallel series like this, and they will be processed in parallel by different
maintainers (and Markus will have to merge series for subsystems with
unavailable maintainers).
This sounds nice. My only concern would be to end up fixing code nobody
uses or cares for, so I guess it would be better that active maintainers
or supporters give impetus on that.
So, everybody is welcome to the process [2]. Probably we want to make a
separate announcement in a list with short recommendations and instructions?
But who read announcements..
I don't :) but the very massive series that were posted on the topic
the last few months look like an announcement to me, at least for
active maintainers and supporters.