From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2C22049B for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 16:31:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935016AbcHEQbf (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:31:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57295 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760029AbcHEQbf (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:31:35 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130EF2F34A; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:31:34 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Z9pZfzwR4Gdpg+wukpHlVlOBjDg=; b=lowCJf ixy7+DBURdpIQ++W9XcAfhxcWBXYBalLPDnN1quBIsVk8l3MhLaaIGBL8MlhRuW7 x6HoQef44r2oORMNmORBNjVyGIEkGrHucXJo5/XO2AqVU7IpC3JQF0Is/JsbKAnj uroSVCL50+ECIaTDSdJjiKhmCLqybpo8Sk7/A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ErXltEnPqaOrO8sILw+3HaR0D2ELd9CY pwuYiD4Y40UX82mPp7FH2AUv+Z5ADIzH3gxCyij8RROFDlyW5kr+FS3bct5WUN+Z ocPjPalny146nlvJruMG+1ARWE9fttiykFle8xdEaNP40D7jRWfdXX+Kig4aZutE vRuE8k0vx7Q= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0324E2F347; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8415B2F346; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:31:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Lars Schneider Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, jnareb@gmail.com, tboegi@web.de, mlbright@gmail.com, e@80x24.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/12] pkt-line: extract set_packet_header() References: <20160729233801.82844-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160803164225.46355-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160803164225.46355-2-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160803211221.t2zdhvwjum2baeqs@sigill.intra.peff.net> <486BA59A-F53B-4893-AE37-8956FCDE7E22@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:31:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: <486BA59A-F53B-4893-AE37-8956FCDE7E22@gmail.com> (Lars Schneider's message of "Fri, 5 Aug 2016 16:55:16 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 125BE670-5B2A-11E6-9A67-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Lars Schneider writes: > However, besides the bogus performance argument I introduced that function > to allow packet writs to fail using the `gentle` parameter: > http://public-inbox.org/git/D116610C-F33A-43DA-A49D-0B33958822E5%40gmail.com/ > > Would you be OK if I introduce packet_write_gently() that returns `0` if the > write was OK and `-1` if it failed? Yes, I agree with you that it would be a good thing to have a _gently() variant that lets the caller deal with possible error conditions itself instead of dying. Thanks.