On 07/28/2017 12:56 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:38:55PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: >> Rather than ignore errors, let's have virObjectLockRead check for >> the correct usage and issue an error when not properly used so >> so that we don't run into situations where the resource we think >> we're locking really isn't locked because the void input parameter >> wasn't valid. > > I agree with Dan that this doesn't give any benefit. We should rather > consider start using abort() since this is a programming error, not > something that depends on an input from user. It should not happen if > if it does we have serious issues and abort is a best choice. > > Pavel > I'm in the minority, but that's fine. I could also change this patch to be rename virObjectLockRead to be virObjectRWLockRead as suggested later on too. John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
