Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/4] vl: Clean up machine selection in main().

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 02/16/16 15:57, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We set machine_class to the default first, and update it to the real
> one later.  Any use of machine_class in between is almost certainly
> wrong.  Set it once and for all instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> ---
>  vl.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 7918e9f..098728c 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -2748,8 +2748,9 @@ static const QEMUOption *lookup_opt(int argc, char **argv,
>      return popt;
>  }
>  
> -static void set_machine_options(MachineClass **machine_class)
> +static MachineClass *select_machine(MachineClass *dflt)
>  {
> +    MachineClass *machine_class = dflt;
>      const char *optarg;
>      QemuOpts *opts;
>      Location loc;
> @@ -2761,16 +2762,17 @@ static void set_machine_options(MachineClass **machine_class)
>  
>      optarg = qemu_opt_get(opts, "type");
>      if (optarg) {
> -        *machine_class = machine_parse(optarg);
> +        machine_class = machine_parse(optarg);
>      }
>  
> -    if (*machine_class == NULL) {
> +    if (!machine_class) {
>          error_report("No machine specified, and there is no default");
>          error_printf("Use -machine help to list supported machines\n");
>          exit(1);
>      }
>  
>      loc_pop(&loc);
> +    return machine_class;
>  }
>  
>  static int machine_set_property(void *opaque,
> @@ -3075,7 +3077,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>      os_setup_early_signal_handling();
>  
>      module_call_init(MODULE_INIT_MACHINE);
> -    machine_class = find_default_machine();
>      cpu_model = NULL;
>      snapshot = 0;
>      cyls = heads = secs = 0;
> @@ -4066,7 +4067,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>  
>      replay_configure(icount_opts);
>  
> -    set_machine_options(&machine_class);
> +    machine_class = select_machine(find_default_machine());
>  
>      set_memory_options(&ram_slots, &maxram_size, machine_class);
>  
> 

Sorry for not being more responsive in this thread. I read through the
patches now (including this one), and they look good to me.

I have one suggestion for the commit message of this patch, after
checking "vl.c" (and keeping the earlier patches of the series in mind):
after the statement

  Any use of machine_class in between is almost certainly wrong

can you please observe

  (there are no such uses right now)

?

series
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>

Thanks
Laszlo