On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 15:18 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
Can you use "fail" pattern instead of calling the former
each time
allocation fails?
Otherwise it looks good. I like the function.
I would like to vouch for always using 'done:' as a label and not other
arbitrary words.
Whether it is a failure or not should be determined by testing the error
value. This way we always use the same pattern, which helps in reading
the code.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York