On 07/28/2017 08:26 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 07/28/2017 12:56 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:38:55PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
Rather than ignore errors, let's have virObjectLockRead check for the correct usage and issue an error when not properly used so so that we don't run into situations where the resource we think we're locking really isn't locked because the void input parameter wasn't valid.
I agree with Dan that this doesn't give any benefit. We should rather consider start using abort() since this is a programming error, not something that depends on an input from user. It should not happen if if it does we have serious issues and abort is a best choice.
Pavel
I'm in the minority, but that's fine. I could also change this patch to be rename virObjectLockRead to be virObjectRWLockRead as suggested later on too.
Actually, me choosing virObjectLockRead over virObjectRWLockRead was arbitrary. The reason is that my text editor can offer me completions: virObjectLock virObjectLockWrite virObjectLockRead BTW: Following your reasoning here, it should have been called virObjectLockableLock() instead of virObjectLock() ;-) IOW, I'm failing to see the need for 'RW' in the name you're suggesting. Michal