larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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?
Of course, if you have written callers to this function in later
patches in this series, they would be responsible for reporting (or
choosing not to report) this failure, but I think making this
function silent is a better course in the longer term.