Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/6] pci: Clean up error checking in pci_add_capability()

[Markus Armbruster]

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 03:54:37PM +0800, Mao Zhongyi wrote:
>> On success, pci_add_capability2() returns a positive value. On
>> failure, it sets an error and return a negative value.
>> 
>> pci_add_capability() laboriously checks this behavior. No other
>> caller does. Drop the checks from pci_add_capability().
>> 
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Signed-off-by: Mao Zhongyi <address@hidden>
>> Reviewed-by: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/pci/pci.c | 6 +-----
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> index 98ccc27..53566b8 100644
>> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -2270,12 +2270,8 @@ int pci_add_capability(PCIDevice *pdev, uint8_t 
>> cap_id,
>>      Error *local_err = NULL;
>>  
>>      ret = pci_add_capability2(pdev, cap_id, offset, size, &local_err);
>> -    if (local_err) {
>> -        assert(ret < 0);
>> +    if (ret < 0) {
>>          error_report_err(local_err);
>> -    } else {
>> -        /* success implies a positive offset in config space */
>> -        assert(ret > 0);
>>      }
>>      return ret;
>>  }
>
>
> I don't see why this is a good idea. You drop a bunch of
> asserts, so naturally code is slightly tighter. We could gain
> the same by building with NDEBUG but we don't, we rather
> have more safety.

It's a good idea because it's what we do basically everywhere when a
function sets an error and returns a distinct error value.