From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35EEFC79F82 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 15:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x2VXI-0002g4-CV; Fri, 04 Sep 2026 11:09:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x2VXH-0002fF-2Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2026 11:08:59 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.223.131]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x2VXF-0001ka-5Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2026 11:08:58 -0400 Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4342520398; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 15:08:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1788534531; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4yR/zF7xQUqL2IezJ5t5YUwUGRoJ9AK1Qh9ZIojktQg=; b=glO4i/G1/HbWr6f2dFEJJzjrl1Sti/lHZjH/u+UfTWKtioklqHKM6NetAGAdvQsg7dqk4w vd4uoag4WugYBTRjl4oz1Tkv8pcUqwUNJ/ZYg9dx/5FAVl5Emrw7/i4dbTb9+tnuq7eLTM S+NBgQeQq6ggLqOe3N9Pyi9hPQpHnAc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1788534531; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4yR/zF7xQUqL2IezJ5t5YUwUGRoJ9AK1Qh9ZIojktQg=; b=GzI9oRhbuXbU5wMAlAXZTsefHdNm5SxDJDeK9inzu30A9map8tq6fjIs11PX45AORBCs7W Fx+Ra17lCn7JT5Aw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1788534527; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4yR/zF7xQUqL2IezJ5t5YUwUGRoJ9AK1Qh9ZIojktQg=; b=Wwk1Sa4Qyx6HB0C02qse8yD7s92sUAwyDLeYq26Wn/rnKhdQ/0NY9NaxIdc78JOtGySsib SC0cwhEQHZZDpTdswah5ZuPrKRX8Po8thb+lIHe3QIOadiaHPErENsLU3xUSZLPt4hlJYY S7qJpIOh+rClrkj3tNYgX/qn4z+YKwA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1788534527; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4yR/zF7xQUqL2IezJ5t5YUwUGRoJ9AK1Qh9ZIojktQg=; b=9PSIVF+ypLBebVTX7OJ0SaZTIcnw6DOb2RwZZJ45THTDpiUiKCiEEZgjLXRqDqpqjerVig 8dwUI04tqBUsIjDw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC69E13736; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 15:08:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id 2i+rHP7emmpwcQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 04 Sep 2026 15:08:46 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] migration: Use output visitor in info command In-Reply-To: References: <20260902221547.1812481-1-farosas@suse.de> <20260902221547.1812481-14-farosas@suse.de> <87zexx6sn2.fsf@suse.de> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:08:40 -0300 Message-ID: <87o6ed6olj.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:mid,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo] Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.135.223.131; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Peter Xu writes: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 10:41:21AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> >> + case QTYPE_QBOOL: { >> >> + QBool *b = qobject_to(QBool, obj); >> >> + if (b) { >> > >> > Similarly, I'd drop "if" if it will always happen, making qbool_get_bool() >> > assert itself by deref. >> > >> >> I'd rather not have such asserts in user-facing code. Even with testing, >> it's hard to ensure this 'obj' will reach here in integrity. > > Not a big deal here, but just for sake of pure discussion.. > > IMHO it's not the "user triggerable path" that we are avoiding assert()s, > but user input that may affect the result of the assert(). > In this case, there should be none, agreed. > Here if we just checked obj type is QTYPE_QBOOL, I can't see anything that > can make this if not true. > Thanks for saying it explicitly, I wasn't seeing the obvious redundancy there. You're right, I'll remove the checks. > I still think assert() good guarding programming errors. Say, if something > we wanted to print here but skipped, I want it to crash hard, rather than > silently ignored.