Claudio Fontana <[email protected]> writes:
> On 1/28/21 2:03 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 1/28/21 10:28 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
<snip>
>>> +
>>> +#define TYPE_ACCEL_CPU "accel-" CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE
>>> +#define ACCEL_CPU_NAME(name) (name "-" TYPE_ACCEL_CPU)
>>> +typedef struct AccelCPUClass AccelCPUClass;
>>> +DECLARE_CLASS_CHECKERS(AccelCPUClass, ACCEL_CPU, TYPE_ACCEL_CPU)
>>> +
>>> +typedef struct AccelCPUClass {
>>> + /*< private >*/
>>> + ObjectClass parent_class;
>>> + /*< public >*/
>>> +
>>> + void (*cpu_class_init)(CPUClass *cc);
>>> + void (*cpu_instance_init)(CPUState *cpu);
>>> + void (*cpu_realizefn)(CPUState *cpu, Error **errp);
>>
>> If we want callers to check errp, better have the prototype return
>> a boolean.
>
> Good point, the whole errp thing is worth revisiting in the series,
> there are many cases (which are basically reproduced in the refactoring from
> existing code),
> where errp is passed but is really unused.
>
> I am constantly internally debating whether to remove the parameter
> altogether, or to keep it in there.
>
> What would you suggest?
I think it really depends on if we can expect the realizefn to usefully
return an error message that can be read and understood by the user. I
guess this comes down to how much user config is going to be checked at
the point we realize the CPU?
The bool returning realizefn with Error is a fairly common pattern.
>
>>
>>> +} AccelCPUClass;
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for looking at this,
>
> Claudio
--
Alex Bennée
