On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:30 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The problem with a patch like this is that it rolls up into a > single patch changes to the API of many functions in multiple > subsystems across the whole codebase. Some of those changes > might be right; some might be wrong. No single person is going > to be in a position to review the whole lot, and a +248-403 > patch email makes it very unwieldy to try to discuss. > > If you want to propose some of these I think you need to: > * split it out so that you're only suggesting changes in > one subsystem at a time > * look at the places you are suggesting changes, to see if > the correct answer is actually "add the missing error > check in the caller(s)" > * not change places that are following standard API patterns > like "return bool and have an Error** argument" Sounds good. For now, I'll limit the changes to a few representative cases e.g. in the block layer, since this patch is mostly intended as a demonstration of the type of issue that the check catches. Once there is agreement on the semantics for the check, I'll probably send a separate tree-wide series with per-subsystem patches. Thanks, Alberto
