Re: Questionable aspects of QEMU Error's design

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 02/04/20 10:55, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 
> When you return non-null/null or true/false on success/error, neglecting
> to document that in a function contract can perhaps be tolerated; you're
> using the return type the common, obvious way.  But when you return 0/-1
> or 0/-errno, please spell it out.  I've seen too many "Operation not
> permitted" that were actually -1 mistaken for -EPERM.

Hopefully that would be avoided by the usage of Error itself.

Paolo

> Also too many
> functions that return -1 for some failures and -errno for others.