From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jpqhb-0002ua-D5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:08:55 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JpqhZ-0002sk-QJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:08:54 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55008 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JpqhZ-0002sh-Oi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:08:53 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JpqhZ-000306-BH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:08:53 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [4261] Errors while registering ioports are not fatal (Glauber Costa). Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:08:49 +0100 References: <200804262026.06396.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804262108.50036.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: andrzej zaborowski Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Saturday 26 April 2008, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 26/04/2008, Paul Brook wrote: > > On Saturday 26 April 2008, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote: > > > Revision: 4261 > > > > > > http://svn.sv.gnu.org/viewvc/?view=rev&root=qemu&revision=4261 Author: > > > balrog > > > Date: 2008-04-26 16:04:29 +0000 (Sat, 26 Apr 2008) > > > > > > Log Message: > > > ----------- > > > Errors while registering ioports are not fatal (Glauber Costa). > > > > Why shouldn't they be fatal? How can this be anything other than a > > serious bug in the device emulation? > > This change is perhaps not useful, it would be useful with hot-plugged > / proxied pci devices. I fail to see how hotplugging or proxing has anything to do with it. IO port registration is not something that can reasonably fail. If the real problem is that we can't cope with multiple devices registering the same IO port than you need to fix that. Blindly punting to the caller to cope is IMHO not an acceptable solution, especially when none of the callers check the return value. Paul