Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/8]: QError v2

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
>> #define QERR_DEVICE_ALREADY_OPEN "{'class': 'DeviceAlreadyOpen', 'data' 
>> : {'bus_num': %d, 'addr': %d}"
>>
>> qemu_error_new(QERR_DEVICE_ALREADY_OPEN, bus_num, addr);
>>     
>
>  What about DeviceAlreadyOpen errors with a different argument list?
>   

Why would you have this?  That would seem like a problem to me.  I think 
the errors need to be very well structured (just like everything else in 
QMP).

>> That gives us a nice simple interface with full error checking on the 
>> parameters.
>>     
>
>  I've said this is not so simple because people writing those macros
> would find out that the 'class' or 'data' _keys_ are missing or incorrect
> only at run-time, when the error is triggered.
>   

Sure but introducing new types of errors is not the common case.  Using 
existing errors is the common case.

>> For human readable strings, I'd suggest making a table somewhere else 
>> that looked like:
>>
>> QErrorStringTable qerror_descriptions[] = {
>> { QERR_DEVICE_ALREADY_OPEN, "This device at %(bus_num)d.%(addr)d is 
>> already open." },
>> ...
>> };
>>     
>
>  How do you suggest we lookup the table? Doing a strcmp() on
> QERR_DEVICE_ALREADY_OPEN?
>   

We can either change the index on the table to be just the class code or 
find something more clever.

>> There are a number of advantages to an approach like this.  The table 
>> can be reused by both in the server and by a client.
>>     
>
>  My suggestions on both problems makes me willing go back to my initial
> series, which had a table indexed by an error number.
>   

I don't understand why.

-- 
Regards,

Anthony Liguori