From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7EBC3A59B for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 06:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0437A2086C for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 06:37:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0437A2086C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:45342 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hzbIg-0002Dx-6w for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 02:37:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53788) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hzbI0-0001no-Bq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 02:37:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hzbHz-0004zZ-49 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 02:37:12 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:10618) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hzbHy-0004yE-SU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 02:37:11 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Aug 2019 23:37:08 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,403,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="179329883" Received: from richard.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.159.54]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2019 23:37:06 -0700 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:36:43 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: "Zeng, Star" Message-ID: <20190819063643.GA28772@richard> References: <20190730003740.20694-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20190730003740.20694-2-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483104038F59D@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20190808021329.GC26938@richard> <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483104038F61B@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20190808023802.GD26938@richard> <20190819023855.GC6368@richard> <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483104039E3A1@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483104039E3A1@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 192.55.52.93 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] memory-device: not necessary to use goto for the last check X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Wei Yang Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "imammedo@redhat.com" , "mst@redhat.com" , Wei Yang , David Hildenbrand Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:32:14AM +0000, Zeng, Star wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wei Yang [mailto:richardw.yang@linux.intel.com] >> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:39 AM >> To: David Hildenbrand >> Cc: Wei Yang ; Zeng, Star >> ; imammedo@redhat.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; >> mst@redhat.com >> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] memory-device: not necessary to >> use goto for the last check >> >> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:06:21AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> >On 08.08.19 04:38, Wei Yang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 02:30:02AM +0000, Zeng, Star wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: Wei Yang [mailto:richardw.yang@linux.intel.com] >> >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:13 AM >> >>>> To: Zeng, Star >> >>>> Cc: Wei Yang ; >> >>>> qemu-devel@nongnu.org; imammedo@redhat.com; >> david@redhat.com; >> >>>> mst@redhat.com >> >>>> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] memory-device: not >> >>>> necessary to use goto for the last check >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:42:14AM +0000, Zeng, Star wrote: >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>> From: Qemu-devel [mailto:qemu-devel- >> >>>>>> bounces+star.zeng=intel.com@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Wei Yang >> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 8:38 AM >> >>>>>> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org >> >>>>>> Cc: imammedo@redhat.com; david@redhat.com; Wei Yang >> >>>>>> ; mst@redhat.com >> >>>>>> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] memory-device: not >> necessary >> >>>>>> to use goto for the last check >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We are already at the last condition check. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang >> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov >> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand >> >>>>>> --- >> >>>>>> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 1 - >> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory- >> device.c >> >>>> index >> >>>>>> 5f2c408036..df3261b32a 100644 >> >>>>>> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c >> >>>>>> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c >> >>>>>> @@ -186,7 +186,6 @@ static uint64_t >> >>>>>> memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState *ms, >> >>>>>> if (!range_contains_range(&as, &new)) { >> >>>>>> error_setg(errp, "could not find position in guest address space >> for " >> >>>>>> "memory device - memory fragmented due to >> alignments"); >> >>>>>> - goto out; >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Is it better to return 0 (or set new_addr to 0) for this error >> >>>>> path and another >> >>>> remaining "goto out" path? >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I may not get your point. >> >>>> >> >>>> We set errp which is handled in its caller. By doing so, the error is >> propagated. >> >>>> >> >>>> Do I miss something? >> >>> >> >>> Yes, you are right. Currently, the caller is checking errp, but not the >> returned address, so there should be no issue. >> >>> But when you see other error paths, you will find they all return 0. >> >>> To be aligned (return 0 when error), so just suggest also returning >> >>> 0 for these two "goto out" error path. :) >> >>> >> >> >> >> You may have some point. >> >> >> >> Let's see whether others have the same taste, or we can refine it >> separately. >> >> >> > >> >I don't think that's necessary (callers really should check for errors >> >before using the return values), but I would also not object to that change. >> > >> >> In case there is no strong requirement to refactor the code. I would leave it >> here. > >It was just my suggestion. I am fine with any preference you and other experts have. > Thanks >Thanks, >Star > >> >> >-- >> > >> >Thanks, >> > >> >David / dhildenb >> >> -- >> Wei Yang >> Help you, Help me -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me