Re: [PATCH] trace2: refactor to avoid gcc warning under -O3

> The patch makes sense to me, modulo that the way the variable
> "saved_errno" introduced by this patch is used and the way a
> variable with that name is typically used in our codebase are at
> odds.  I.e. we typically call a variable "saved_errno" when it is
> used in this pattern:
> 
>     if (a_syscall_whose_error_condition_we_care_about()) {
> 	int saved_errno = errno;
> 	perform_some_cleanup_operation_that_might_clobber_errno();
> 	return error_errno(..., saved_errno);
> 	/*
> 	 * or
> 	 * errno = saved_errno;
> 	 * return -1;
> 	 * and let the caller handle 'errno'
> 	 */
>     }
> 
> But since I do not think of a better name for this new variable that
> is not exactly used like so, let's queue it as-is.