From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3816EC433EF for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 08:32:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C08861074 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 08:32:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 8C08861074 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:44002 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mYOpD-0001ns-GS for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 04:32:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51314) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mYOme-0008KH-2t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 04:29:44 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:25626) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mYOmb-0002im-Bq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 04:29:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1633595380; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0qAQDMDOILhrN7bqzbCYbEWzEPNovRxzacgFDmQV6nE=; b=iyKaSvo8oTklw1xQuyFWjyrMqIS53crB9kwxD3NdXvDl9JDLzwpXIBgI3vEY4jA6DsO6oT O17wmI7dyRzrtOZ8KuGOk12zqMvOehbf9B7Poeczu5YwI7LyMCbBIQXQhunjZjHjMhhL1B mbnuYu8A7GkISvq/3umTmHZhkBEcq+o= Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-255-h3qaMIh3N1CAom5Q3eHrXw-1; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 04:29:38 -0400 X-MC-Unique: h3qaMIh3N1CAom5Q3eHrXw-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id p20-20020a50cd94000000b003db23619472so5163460edi.19 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 01:29:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0qAQDMDOILhrN7bqzbCYbEWzEPNovRxzacgFDmQV6nE=; b=QqIfUzdQacPtzsBDMt/nQVdk+GXiG8asUnjg1+vYj9MiTAX0J2HZ8823p49o/Bye0n s7hvsf/b68BTkZZwbiuN54SbfZdNTa7bG+ZYs99EotJHDPZSRa2IQllPlpmAOdx4kCtU MJN0iTSndwoYHsTAOiLzhseCbjJJO8pPezyUeXBBLPWSgRL9JYW3y6UmKbkqhMU6MlRi Kys6ddgRzuEDvpO6Il3K7cO9mvXzKo8Q3mrdExio9+J3JVDj18CVMfAf48SxCzS9vKHA AWM58VgJl0TSUCluyUT2c9MlrKnALg2yqdDnWPOsFl0aV77fSrfv+TOqrGHU1fcL8gmd dJSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kZtbXRB7GrdzHSgEyEwoltiSiqV56rEQs5vgIrFSGsvNgH9xy ZOG5kYaiRxErjpNQEymZyGG+/FsjHQnJqMtns7dqtIlllqHvz69dLZ+kKeUtIKHQj3+hj+djSsm c7l0o5biDIHyAvbE= X-Received: by 2002:a50:da8f:: with SMTP id q15mr4578043edj.139.1633595377495; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwefieq8aX7pG5qJI6qja+3L2vmfjjwpervW2fJpReG0Lr6nIcHGT0SLgZaWYwVzMgBX2T7Q== X-Received: by 2002:a50:da8f:: with SMTP id q15mr4578007edj.139.1633595377221; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g9sm9977839ejo.60.2021.10.07.01.29.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Oct 2021 01:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7ecf30ae-9fdb-2fec-de0f-c542b51cbbb7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:29:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 16/16] machine: Make smp_parse return a boolean To: Markus Armbruster References: <20210929025816.21076-1-wangyanan55@huawei.com> <20210929025816.21076-17-wangyanan55@huawei.com> <0343d17f-bb46-a266-7ba4-20bdf30631d0@redhat.com> <87bl47ll9l.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Paolo Bonzini In-Reply-To: <87bl47ll9l.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=pbonzini@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.9 / 5.0 requ) DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.05, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.964, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , Andrew Jones , =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , Eduardo Habkost , Pierre Morel , Pankaj Gupta , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Cornelia Huck , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Yanan Wang , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , David Gibson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 02/10/21 13:27, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> The "return a boolean" rule adds some complexity (and >> a possibility for things to be wrong/inconsistent) to the function for >> the benefit of the callers. > Yes, but returning something is only a minor burden. It also makes > success vs. failure obvious at a glance. Fair enough; I'd still prefer to have an exception to the rule for virtual functions. In that case, I really find the benefit to be negative. Paolo