Re: [PATCH 4/6] log: Add _perror() logging function variants

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:46:36 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > In many places, we have direct perror() calls, which completely bypass
> > logging functions and log files.
> > 
> > They are definitely convenient: offer similar convenience with
> > _perror() logging variants, so that we can drop those direct perror()
> > calls.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>  
> 
> Hm, for anything bigger than like a screenful of code, I generally
> find an explicit message with strerror(errno) more useful than
> perror() or equivalents, but I guess if you think these are useful.

Okay, yes, it probably makes sense to have more descriptive messages as
you suggest in the comment to 5/6, but even then, we still have a lot
of cases like this one (from 6/6):

-		warn("lseek() failed on /proc/net file: %s", strerror(errno));
+		warn_perror("lseek() failed on /proc/net file");

where these _perror() variants make for tidier code, I find, regardless
of the error message itself.

-- 
Stefano