From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MqucE-0000fl-85
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:08:34 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mquc9-0000ax-HF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:08:33 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56933 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mquc9-0000au-FM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:08:29 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63931)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <markmc@redhat.com>) id 1Mquc8-0002CM-T7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:08:29 -0400
Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8OK8R7l017363
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:08:27 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix exit on 'pci_add' Monitor command
From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <87iqf8ciup.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org>
References: <20090924111601.1d3668d2@doriath>
	<87iqf8ciup.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:07:04 +0100
Message-Id: <1253822824.32256.55.camel@blaa>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 20:12 +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> My major complaint is that I'd rather see the code cleaned up there.
> It's perfectly fine for code that can run only during startup to
> terminate the program on configuration error.  Code to be used after
> startup (used from monitor, in particular) must not do that.  Instead,
> it should return failure up the call chain, until we reach either
> startup code or monitor code, where the policy how to handle the error
> resides.

Agree, I'd like to see it cleaned up.

However, Luiz's patch fixes the most serious side effect without a major
re-factoring, so I'd like to see that go in first (and stable-0.11) and
do the re-factoring later.

Cheers,
Mark.