[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 11/14] block/qcow2-bitmap: return startus from qcow2_store_pe

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] block/qcow2-bitmap: return startus from qcow2_store_persistent_dirty_bitmaps
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:53:50 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> writes:

> 11.09.2020 18:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> writes:
>>> 11.09.2020 14:21, Greg Kurz wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:32 +0300
>>>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hmm.. With this series I understand the following:
>>>>> 1. It's no sense in simple applying scripts/coccinelle/errp-guard.cocci 
>>>>> to the whole code-base, because:
>>>>>      - it produces a lot of "if (*errp)" in places where it is really 
>>>>> simple to avoid error propagation at all, like in this series
>>>>>      - reviewing is the hardest part of the process
>>>>> So, if we have to review these changes anyway, it's better to invest a 
>>>>> bit more time into patch creation, and make code correspond to our modern 
>>>>> error API recommendations.
>> Yes, going the extra mile is better.
>> I recommend it for code that is actively maintained.  Making the code
>> simpler and thus easier to maintain is an investment that'll pay off.
>> We may have code where it won't pay off.  Do you think a blind
>> application of errp-guard.cocci might be better than nothing there?
> I think, careful review is needed anyway. And it may be too large effort for 
> dead (or almost dead) code.
> So, let's start from popular subsystems. And make a decision for the rest 
> later.

Makes sense.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]