Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I dropped the "read_in_full() should set errno on short reads" idea (3/7 > in the earlier series). It really is the caller's fault for looking at > errno when they know there hasn't been an error in the first place. We > should just bite the bullet and have the callers do the right thing. > > I also dropped the "xread_in_full" helper (7/7 earlier). The lego > sentences it created just weren't worth the hassle. Instead, I've fixed > all of the relevant callers to provide good error messages for both > cases. It's a few more lines of code, and it's probably rare for users > to see these in the first place. But it doesn't hurt too much to be > thorough, and I think it's good to model correct error handling. This is > in patches 4 and 5 below. Thanks for being thorough. My comment on 3/7 might be taken as contradicting with how 5/7 ties the loose ends up, but I do not care too deeply either way. Will queue.
