On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 12:46, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 13.09.21 12:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 11:46, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why? You only get to this code path if you already selected -accel hvf. > >> If even a simple "create scratch vcpu" syscall failed then, pretty > >> failure when you define -cpu host is the last thing you care about. Any > >> CPU creation would fail. > > General design principle -- low level functions should report > > errors upwards, not barf and exit. > > > Usually I would agree with you, but here it really does not make sense > and would make the code significantly harder to read.
It's an unnecessary difference from how we've structured the KVM code. I don't like those. Every time you put one in to the code you write you can be fairly sure I'm going to question it during review... I want to be able to look at the hvf code and say "ah, yes, this is just the hvf version of the kvm code we already have". -- PMM
