[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 05/46] hw/i386/pc: use qemu_get_nic_info() and pci_init_nic_devices()
On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 12:20 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 26/01/2024 12.13, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 11:43 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > On 08/01/2024 21.26, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Eliminate direct access to nd_table[] and nb_nics by processing the the > > > > Xen and ISA NICs first and then calling pci_init_nic_devices() for the > > > > rest. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > hw/i386/pc.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++---------- > > > > include/hw/net/ne2000-isa.h | 2 -- > > > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c > > > > index 496498df3a..d80c536d88 100644 > > > > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c > > > > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c > > > > @@ -658,8 +658,11 @@ static void pc_init_ne2k_isa(ISABus *bus, NICInfo > > > > *nd) > > > > { > > > > static int nb_ne2k = 0; > > > > > > > > - if (nb_ne2k == NE2000_NB_MAX) > > > > + if (nb_ne2k == NE2000_NB_MAX) { > > > > + error_setg(&error_fatal, > > > > + "maximum number of ISA NE2000 devices exceeded"); > > > > return; > > > > + } > > > > > > error_setg(&error_fatal, ...) quits QEMU, so the "return;" does not make > > > much sense anymore. > > > Now, according to include/qapi/error.h : > > > > > > * Please don't error_setg(&error_fatal, ...), use error_report() and > > > * exit(), because that's more obvious. > > > > > > So I'd suggest to do that instead. > > > > It's going slightly in the opposite direction to what's requested in > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/34e2c0c6-4e04-486a-8e1f-4afdc461a5d4@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I was thinking that a future patch would let the &error_fatal be an > > Error** passed in by the caller, and not actually hard-coded to be > > fatal at all. > > > > But sure, unless Philippe objects I'm happy to do it as you show above. > > Now that you mention it, I'd also prefer having an Error** parameter to the > function instead, that's certainly cleaner. So if you don't mind, please > follow Philippe's suggestion instead! Right. There's a whole bunch of functions to untangle, that take an Error** but don't return success/failure independently as they should. Or don't even take the Error**. Rather than trying to fix that as part of this series, this was my compromise — making it easy to switch that explicit &error_fatal out for a function parameter, but not trying to shave that part of the yak myself just yet. Attachment:
smime.p7s
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |