Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] usb-mtp: fix return status of delete

[Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 16:43, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 16:14, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Generally, if you have multiple bits X, Y in a return
> > value, they should be independent. Sometimes we define
> > a convenience value Z that's X | Y, but then Z should
> > have a name that indicates that it's really doing both
> > X and Y (for instance often a READWRITE constant will
> > be READ | WRITE). In this case, I don't see why
> > PARTIAL_DELETE would be a sensible name to indicate
> > "both ALL_DELETE and also READ_ONLY" -- if we only
> > partially did a delete why do we set the ALL_DELETE bit ?
> >
>
> Because during a recursive call, we were able to successfully
> delete objects(s) for the previous call but for "this"
> set of objects, it failed which is supposed to return a
> partial_delete back.
>
> Does simply "DELETE" instead of "ALL_DELETE" seem less
> confusing ? I definitely want to keep PARTIAL_DELETE the
> way it is simply because it's easier to refer back
> to the spec that way.

I think this would be easier to answer if you answered
this question:

> > It might be useful to take a step back -- what are
> > the different possible outcomes from this function that
> > we need to distinguish, and when should we be returning
> > which outcome?

thanks
-- PMM