Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 13 Sep 2016, at 00:30, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> Agreed!
I am also OK with the current form, too. Those who need to enhance
it to packet_flush_gently(int fd, int quiet) can come later.