Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 04/10] pcnet: pcnet_common_init() always returns 0, change to void

[Markus Armbruster]

Gonglei <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2014/10/28 15:35, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> The next commit will exploit the fact it never fails.  This one makes
>> it obvious.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/net/lance.c     | 3 ++-
>>  hw/net/pcnet-pci.c | 3 ++-
>>  hw/net/pcnet.c     | 4 +---
>>  hw/net/pcnet.h     | 2 +-
>>  4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/hw/net/lance.c b/hw/net/lance.c
>> index a1c49f1..3663340 100644
>> --- a/hw/net/lance.c
>> +++ b/hw/net/lance.c
>> @@ -134,7 +134,8 @@ static int lance_init(SysBusDevice *sbd)
>>  
>>      s->phys_mem_read = ledma_memory_read;
>>      s->phys_mem_write = ledma_memory_write;
>> -    return pcnet_common_init(dev, s, &net_lance_info);
>> +    pcnet_common_init(dev, s, &net_lance_info);
>> +    return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void lance_reset(DeviceState *dev)
>> diff --git a/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c b/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c
>> index fb5f5d6..50eb069 100644
>> --- a/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c
>> @@ -335,7 +335,8 @@ static int pci_pcnet_init(PCIDevice *pci_dev)
>>      s->phys_mem_write = pci_physical_memory_write;
>>      s->dma_opaque = pci_dev;
>>  
>> -    return pcnet_common_init(DEVICE(pci_dev), s, &net_pci_pcnet_info);
>> +    pcnet_common_init(DEVICE(pci_dev), s, &net_pci_pcnet_info);
>> +    return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void pci_reset(DeviceState *dev)
>> diff --git a/hw/net/pcnet.c b/hw/net/pcnet.c
>> index d344c15..5a081c4 100644
>> --- a/hw/net/pcnet.c
>> +++ b/hw/net/pcnet.c
>> @@ -1724,7 +1724,7 @@ void pcnet_common_cleanup(PCNetState *d)
>>      d->nic = NULL;
>>  }
>>  
>> -int pcnet_common_init(DeviceState *dev, PCNetState *s, NetClientInfo *info)
>> +void pcnet_common_init(DeviceState *dev, PCNetState *s, NetClientInfo *info)
>
> Do we need consider to pass an Error **errp argument to it?

This function can't fail.  The point of thimy patch is to make "can't
fail" obvious.  If we add an errp parameter, the caller needs to check
it, for robustness.  I prefer to keep things simple, and add the error
checking only when it's actually needed.

> Best regards,
> -Gonglei

Thanks!

[...]