From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50486) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YM5kw-0003vE-3x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:13:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YM5ks-0002lC-U4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:13:22 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:15568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YM5ks-0002l2-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:13:18 -0500 Message-ID: <54DD5D98.6060505@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:12:40 +0800 From: Gonglei MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1423293616-10736-1-git-send-email-arei.gonglei@huawei.com> <1423293616-10736-2-git-send-email-arei.gonglei@huawei.com> <87twyra0um.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <87twyra0um.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/4] bootdevice: remove the check about boot_set_handler List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: peter.huangpeng@huawei.com, dvaleev@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de On 2015/2/12 18:19, Markus Armbruster wrote: > writes: > >> From: Gonglei >> >> The reset logic can be done by both machine reset and >> boot handler. So we shouldn't return error when the boot >> handler callback don't be set. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gonglei >> Reviewed-by: Alexander Graf >> --- >> bootdevice.c | 10 +++------- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/bootdevice.c b/bootdevice.c >> index 5914417..52d3f9e 100644 >> --- a/bootdevice.c >> +++ b/bootdevice.c >> @@ -51,19 +51,15 @@ void qemu_boot_set(const char *boot_order, Error **errp) >> { >> Error *local_err = NULL; >> >> - if (!boot_set_handler) { >> - error_setg(errp, "no function defined to set boot device list for" >> - " this architecture"); >> - return; >> - } >> - >> validate_bootdevices(boot_order, &local_err); >> if (local_err) { >> error_propagate(errp, local_err); >> return; >> } >> >> - boot_set_handler(boot_set_opaque, boot_order, errp); >> + if (boot_set_handler) { >> + boot_set_handler(boot_set_opaque, boot_order, errp); >> + } >> } >> >> void validate_bootdevices(const char *devices, Error **errp) > > You didn't address my review of v2 (appended for your convenience). You > replied to it, pointing to previous conversation, but I'm afraid don't > understand how that conversation applies to changing behavior of HMP > command boot_set. > Yes, indeed. Maybe I ignored the key point of your review comments, sorry for that. :( > If changing boot_set to silently do nothing instead of failing loudly > when the target doesn't support changing the boot order is what you > want, then you have to document it *prominently* in the commit message. > > My advice is not to change boot_set's behavior that way, because when > the user's command makes no sense, ignoring it silently instead of > telling him about the problem is not nice. My review comment describes > one way to do that. There are others. > Yes, I agree with you. > > Review of v2: > > Two callers: > > * HMP command boot_set > > Before your patch: command fails when the target doesn't support > changing the boot order. > > After your patch: command silently does nothing. I'm afraid that's a > regression. > Yes, it is. > Aside: looks like there's no QMP command. > > * restore_boot_order() > > No change yet, because restore_boot_order() ignores errors. But PATCH > 3 will make it abort on error. I guess that's why you make the change > here. > The main cause that I make the change here is making preparation for PATCH 4 (I will explain my original purpose about this patch in another thread). But As your comments, it cause a regression for HMP command boot_set. So, that's not a good idea after careful consideration. > To avoid the regression, you could drop PATCH 1, and change PATCH 3 to > something like > It's ok. > - qemu_boot_set(normal_boot_order, NULL); > + if (boot_set_handler) { > + qemu_boot_set(normal_boot_order, &error_abort); > + } > > There are other ways, but this looks like the simplest one. > Regards, -Gonglei