On 07/28/2017 08:26 PM, John Ferlan wrote: > > > 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. Actually, me choosing virObjectLockRead over virObjectRWLockRead was arbitrary. The reason is that my text editor can offer me completions: virObjectLock virObjectLockWrite virObjectLockRead BTW: Following your reasoning here, it should have been called virObjectLockableLock() instead of virObjectLock() ;-) IOW, I'm failing to see the need for 'RW' in the name you're suggesting. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
