Re: [PATCH 11/14] block/qcow2-bitmap: return startus from qcow2_store_persistent_dirty_bitmaps

[Markus Armbruster]

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> writes:

> 11.09.2020 18:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> writes:
>> 
>>> 11.09.2020 14:21, Greg Kurz wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:32 +0300
>>>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>>> Hmm.. With this series I understand the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It's no sense in simple applying scripts/coccinelle/errp-guard.cocci 
>>>>> to the whole code-base, because:
>>>>>
>>>>>      - it produces a lot of "if (*errp)" in places where it is really 
>>>>> simple to avoid error propagation at all, like in this series
>>>>>      - reviewing is the hardest part of the process
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if we have to review these changes anyway, it's better to invest a 
>>>>> bit more time into patch creation, and make code correspond to our modern 
>>>>> error API recommendations.
>>
>> Yes, going the extra mile is better.
>>
>> I recommend it for code that is actively maintained.  Making the code
>> simpler and thus easier to maintain is an investment that'll pay off.
>>
>> We may have code where it won't pay off.  Do you think a blind
>> application of errp-guard.cocci might be better than nothing there?
>
> I think, careful review is needed anyway. And it may be too large effort for 
> dead (or almost dead) code.
> So, let's start from popular subsystems. And make a decision for the rest 
> later.

Makes sense.

[...]