From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47950) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gX3Ek-0002Ox-Lk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:03:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gX3Ej-0000xb-Hk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:03:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:03:22 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20181212120322.GA5415@linux.fritz.box> References: <154115285434.11300.8459925605672823399.stgit@dhcp-3-135.uk.xensource.com> <20181102110412.GD7521@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com> <20181212085951.GA7604@aepfle.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181212085951.GA7604@aepfle.de> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] xen_disk qdevification (was: [PATCH 0/3] Performance improvements for xen_disk v2) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Olaf Hering Cc: Tim Smith , Stefano Stabellini , qemu-block@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Reitz , Paul Durrant , Anthony Perard , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 12.12.2018 um 09:59 hat Olaf Hering geschrieben: > On Fri, Nov 02, Kevin Wolf wrote: >=20 > > A while ago, a downstream patch review found out that there are some QMP > > commands that would immediately crash if a xen_disk device were present > > because of the lacking qdevification. This is not the code quality > > standard I envision for QEMU. It's time for non-qdev devices to go. >=20 > Do you have that backwards by any chance? IMO the presence of assert() > contributes to bad code quality, not the drivers that trigger those > asserts. You like shooting the messenger, it seems? Bugs aren't bad, only catching them is? But anyway, in this case, I seem to remember it was a plain old segfault, not a failed assertion. Kevin --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJcEPkKAAoJEH8JsnLIjy/WfOkP/ilV8ovJG80SyTXbBf5iGlTf 92OkHNDm8N+VfVuMFTCXiaIkkwCFbtvDKfI3LYUngh7PgIevZCYJWgjOQRJl7pZi ki4Fptcei2B7kLgtKBCECQEpPUaycTHpqVlSsPBBJ7q8EMH7by7DEs8oH7AvxJNx tfdbhESKNQKrj4igZuq6VwpwyqOOyrl//CKkGon8Wsz5NiHmww9e4jxcH3gIjx+U BFwaB7NP8XjsbDncHzp9Z+p4G3wasbymy9Hq8GM9ujyg/XJwgBGfAEcm6VzGCaO2 ufUumuxkHlu8HCqtaG3Yw2RHzGtzMJ92GUJj2k4apuXQf5sZnE1OYxq0djN7JGrm Y/ie86jw+jONwFNn1CVC/h9UCFOrkaPNvxstes2UxBb3jESpRnUtEdIEsWRyNPfH Cw9DC35Qww3o52R6sjoy6HlN3xeu6jEnc+cP8WDVONYwmpePXZQ7Lg0BWArAgkrS FyWUWnGZKUVeTcI4/SthtN5Jw3UTsF3KFklDPvVm7TQ/3YxVHjtsSdOaVPzCT5pH xc9TBuso6i827+WRre6hGSgQw5E15wjORT4/xaD8tEy8vz4HwUQ5bKyQDTGXouOt fKJGQjPwszI1RQddoZdNpJdBLLxTs54vxtGEZXbX6o02HfwqAoQBEhOJlBhNKSuY BmN8CKru3jSU5bvKKyVX =795z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc--