On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 19:34 +0200, Max Kellermann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 7:15 PM Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I see the point. Our last discussion has finished with statement that Max > > doesn't care about this patch set and we don't need to pick it up. If he changed > > his mind, then I can return to the review of the patch. :) My understanding was > > that he prefers another person for the review. :) This is why I keep silence. > > I do care, always did. I answered your questions, but they were not > really about my patch but about whether error handling is necessary. > Well, yes, of course! The whole point of my patch is to add an error > condition that did not exist before. If locking can fail, of course > you have to check that and propagate the error to the caller (and > unlocking after a failed lock of course leads to sorrow). That is so > trivial, I don't even know where to start to explain this if that > isn't already obvious enough. > > If you keep questioning that, are you really qualified to do a code review? > OK. If I am not good enough, then somebody else can do the review. :) Thanks, Slava.
