From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35493) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fddTG-00023k-Pm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:25:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fddTF-0002X8-TR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:25:30 -0400 References: <1531170180-21199-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <5d0c7195-ffbf-1618-6106-ef6c82df3bd7@redhat.com> <931c0545-e3d8-fc84-9b69-59fab040265c@redhat.com> <20180711161216.GV7451@localhost.localdomain> <87y3egmzem.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <6cc1c007-4bdf-2b8c-b0b0-d32979a56ecd@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:25:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y3egmzem.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/arm/bcm283x: Fix crash with device_add bcm2837 on unsupported machines List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster , Peter Maydell Cc: Eduardo Habkost , Laurent Vivier , QEMU Developers , qemu-arm , Paolo Bonzini On 12.07.2018 14:06, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Peter Maydell writes: > >> On 11 July 2018 at 17:12, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:21:48AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> Hm, ok, so how to continue here now? Shall we at least mark the >>>> bcm2836/7 devices with user_creatable=false, so that users can not crash >>>> their QEMU so easily with device_add? The problem with introspection via >>>> device-list-properties would still continue to exist, but I think that's >>>> less likely used in practice... otherwise we could still move the >>>> qdev_set_parent_bus() calls to the realize() function instead, and just >>>> add a big fat FIXME comment in front of the code block, so that we >>>> remember to clean that up one day... >>> >>> Crashing device-list-properties should be a blocker bug, IMO. > > Seconded. Well, maybe I should then not suggest to add a hmp("info qtree") below the hmp("info qom-tree") in test_one_device() of tests/device-introspect-test.c ... otherwise we'll be quite busy in the next weeks... Thomas