Re: Questionable aspects of QEMU Error's design

From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	"Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy" <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>,
	"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Questionable aspects of QEMU Error's design
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:38:10 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200406143810.GF299832@habkost.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200406140531.GE299832@habkost.net>

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:05:36AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 12:59:27PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
> > Paolo, Daniel, Eduardo,
> > 
> > Please pick one for QOM:
> 
> Replying this without reading the whole discussion and context:
> 
> > 
> > * Do nothing.  Looks like
> > 
> >      object_property_set_bool(..., &err);
> >      if (err) {
> >          error_propagate(errp, err);
> >          return;
> >      }
> > 
> > * Return true on success, false on error.  Looks like
> > 
> 
> I prefer this one.

My weird quoting choice was probably confusing, so for the sake
of clarity: I prefer the "Return true on success, false on error"
option.

> 
> >      if (!object_property_set_bool(..., errp)) {
> >          return;
> >      }
> > 
> > * Return 0 on success, -1 on error.  Looks like
> > 
> >      if (object_property_set_bool(..., errp) < 0) {
> >          return;
> >      }
> > 
> >   This is slightly more likely to require line wrapping than the
> >   previous one.
> 
> -- 
> Eduardo

-- 
Eduardo