Re: [RFC v2 02/10] Drop unused static function return values

[Alberto Faria]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:30 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> 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