On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:23:13AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Michael S. Tsirkin ([email protected]) wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:11:16PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > <snip> > > > > I think your intent here is just to misuse the field_exist function > > > pointer > > > as a call for a different reason as a hook for a validator; is it really > > > worth > > > misusing it like that or is something more explicit worth it? > > > Perhaps something passed an Error** so it could pass back what was wrong? > > > > > > Well adding a required field seems valuable by itself, does it not? > > Maybe; however most fields are always-present, unless they have a test > function or minimum version, so it's a little weird to add a 'required' > when that's the default.
Right - here we say "there is a test function but it must return true". I considered adding a separate callback but it worried me that it's not clear how would it interact with the exist flag or the version flag. Ideas? > > And there's no way to pass in Error** since none of the callers > > has Error**: all of migration still uses stderr to pass > > errors. > > > > So we could add an API but it doesn't seem too valuable. > > > > Since all callers will use this through a wrapper like VMSTATE_TEST, > > it will be easy to change our mind later. > > Yep, that's fine - was just an idea. > > Dave > -- > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
