On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 10:34 +0800, Yang Bai wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:01:26PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Yang Bai <hamo.by@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Since the different issues have been handled in the > >> > internal of kvm__init, it can only return NULL if error > >> > happened. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Yang Bai <hamo.by@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Sorry, I don't understand what this patch is attempting to fix? Why do > >> you think it's better to drop the explicit error codes and always > >> return NULL upon error? > >> > > Ok. Since the different issues have been handled in the internal of > this function and the caller does not care about the real error > reasons. So just return NULL if error will simplify the error handle > of the caller. Um... why doesn't the caller care about the real error? It's whats being sent back to userspace and can help the caller determine whats going on. -- Sasha. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
