On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 11:23 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 08:01:39PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 13:24 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Except some rare cases out use of tevent_req_is_error() was dangerous.
> > Almost everywhere where we used it it was probably ok, but given the
> > semantics of that function I think using the macro in this patch is much
> > safer.
>
> Bad patch,
> attached a new one that actually compiles ...
>
> Simo.
>
Patch does not apply, please rebase. It looks ok by visual inspection
but I would like to run some 'real' tests.
It is based on top of my previous patch "Cleanups".
Will you try to fix this issue upstream ?
There is nothing to fix upstream, the interface is clear and useful as
is, we were just using it in a dangerous way.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York