[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] migration: vmstate_register() check that instance_id
From: |
Peter Xu |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] migration: vmstate_register() check that instance_id is valid |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:32:07 -0400 |
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 05:03:36PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/migration/vmstate.h | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/migration/vmstate.h b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> index 9821918631..c48cd8bb68 100644
> --- a/include/migration/vmstate.h
> +++ b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #define QEMU_VMSTATE_H
>
> #include "hw/vmstate-if.h"
> +#include "qemu/error-report.h"
>
> typedef struct VMStateInfo VMStateInfo;
> typedef struct VMStateField VMStateField;
> @@ -1226,6 +1227,11 @@ static inline int vmstate_register(VMStateIf *obj, int
> instance_id,
> const VMStateDescription *vmsd,
> void *opaque)
> {
> + if (instance_id == VMSTATE_INSTANCE_ID_ANY) {
> + error_report("vmstate_register: Invalid device: %s instance_id: %d",
> + vmsd->name, instance_id);
> + return -1;
> + }
> return vmstate_register_with_alias_id(obj, instance_id, vmsd,
> opaque, -1, 0, NULL);
> }
Juan, could you remind me what's the benefit of failing it like that?
IIUC you want to suggest using vmstate_register_any(), but I think it's all
fine to do vmstate_register(VMSTATE_INSTANCE_ID_ANY)? You didn't have a
commit message, so I am guessing..
Even if that is wanted, the current error message can be confusing to a
developer adding a new vmstate_register(VMSTATE_INSTANCE_ID_ANY) call.
Maybe directly suggest vmstate_register_any() in the error message? But
again, I don't see a benefit, vmstate_register(VMSTATE_INSTANCE_ID_ANY)
should still work if without this patch? Where did I miss?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu