Re: [PATCH 03/14] copy_fd: pass error message back through a strbuf

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 4, 2014, 09:04 UTC
Message-ID: <20141204090406.GA27455@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kby-RdwzgXWvVgD42uiEis7SCnuAdSjO2EL03uN4s=LgA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:36:46AM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> > Your solution adds a strbuf. That helps with context and stomping, but
> > loses readability and adds allocation.
> 
> > If we changed the strbuf to a fixed-size buffer, that would help the
> > allocation issue. Some messages might be truncated, but it seems
> > unlikely in practice. It still loses readability, though.
> 
> > What about a struct that has an errno-like value _and_ a fixed-size
> > buffer? I'm thinking something like:
> 
> What do you mean by the allocation being an issue?

I mean that the caller has to take care of releasing the memory. This adds boilerplate to the caller, and is a potential source of leaks.

> We're only populating the error buffer in the error case, so you're
> not talking about performance/speed I'd assume?

No, I don't care about performance here. Only code maintainability.

> As error handling breaks in the least expected ways, I'd rather go
> with well tested string buffer codes there?

We'd still be building on snprintf. And with a known-size buffer, we can wrap the formatting so that the callers don't even have to care (see the mkerror example I posted).

-Peff