Re: [PATCH v7 04/10] pkt-line: add packet_flush_gently()
- From
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 13, 2016, 22:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <B138B703-08A6-45C4-9D54-80F87C75356B@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqinu0y9v1.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Show 29 quoted lines
> On 13 Sep 2016, at 00:30, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> larsxschneider@gmail.com writes:
>
>> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
>>
>> packet_flush() would die in case of a write error even though for some
>> callers an error would be acceptable. Add packet_flush_gently() which
>> writes a pkt-line flush packet and returns `0` for success and `-1` for
>> failure.
>> ...
>> +int packet_flush_gently(int fd)
>> +{
>> + packet_trace("0000", 4, 1);
>> + if (write_in_full(fd, "0000", 4) == 4)
>> + return 0;
>> + error("flush packet write failed");
>> + return -1;
>
> It is more idiomatic to do
>
> return error(...);
>
> but more importantly, does the caller even want an error message
> unconditionally printed here?
>
> I suspect that it is a strong sign that the caller wants to be in
> control of when and what error message is produced; otherwise it
> wouldn't be calling the _gently() variant, no?Agreed!
Thanks, Lars