On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 16:11:15 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 02:58:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 03:33:57PM +0200, Tim Wiederhake wrote: > > > On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 14:24 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 03:08:50PM +0200, Tim Wiederhake wrote: [...] > The pthread_mutex_destroy call is the only one that I see > returning errors with PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL. So I don't think > there's benefit to adding the code to lock/unlock paths. And as noted I'd be very careful with that one too. I've got at least one counterexample of a code path which effectively does the same on a very common code path. Namely 'virDomainObjParseXML' uses: g_autoptr(virDomainObj) obj = NULL; and then returns directly on common failures such as XML parsing errors, post-parse callback errors or even errors from the validation callbacks. Spamming logs in such a common code path is definitely not acceptable.
