From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42330) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b2JT4-0006S9-8W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 May 2016 10:25:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b2JT0-0000FQ-02 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 May 2016 10:25:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25956) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b2JSz-0000FH-QE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 May 2016 10:25:53 -0400 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0795E3B71D for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 14:25:53 +0000 (UTC) References: <1463062204-20330-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <1487093908.13650793.1463071721586.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20160512170408.GN4457@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5739D86C.6070309@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:25:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160512170408.GN4457@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] Use &error_fatal in some initialization code List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster On 12/05/2016 19:04, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>> This changes some initialization code in vl.c, qemu-img, qemu-io, >>> > > and qemu-nbd to use &error_fatal instead of manual error >>> > > checking/reporting. >>> > > >>> > > The series is based on my machine branch, available at: >>> > > git://github.com/ehabkost/qemu.git machine >> > >> > Patches 1-2-6 are obvious. > Thanks. I will apply 1-2 to my machine branch. Should I apply > patch 6, too? Yes, please. >> > I'm not sure about 3-4-5, these are internal functions where the error >> > is somewhere below "should never happen" (&error_abort)---it actually >> > should never happen, but exiting due to SIGABRT sounds wrong. It's not >> > the kind of function that I'd expect to have an Error** argument... > Assuming you still want to keep the Error** argument in > qemu_init_main_loop(), I can send a simpler patch that doesn't > touch qemu_signal_init(). Sure, that's good! Paolo