[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] exec: Remove the duplicated check in parse_cpu_option()

From: Gavin Shan
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Remove the duplicated check in parse_cpu_option()
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 08:45:56 +1100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.0

On 12/8/19 3:51 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:56:55 +1100
Gavin Shan <address@hidden> wrote:

On 12/7/19 3:58 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
On Fri,  6 Dec 2019 17:33:37 +1100
Gavin Shan <address@hidden> wrote:

The @cpu_option shouldn't be NULL, otherwise assertion from g_strsplit()
should be raised as below message indicates. So it's meaningless to validate
@model_pices[0] in parse_cpu_option() as it shouldn't be NULL either.

     qemu-system-aarch64: GLib: g_strsplit: assertion 'string != NULL' failed

This just removes the check and unused message.

Hrm... the check isn't about @cpu_option being NULL. It is about filtering out
invalid syntaxes like:

-cpu ''


-cpu ,some-prop

Greg, Thanks for your review on this trivial patch.

@cpu_option[0] is NULL when we have "-cpu ''". We run into assertion raised
by subsequent cpu_class_by_name(). However, @cpu_option[0] isn't NULL with
something like "-cpu ,xxx", but the CPU model specific class can't be found
at last.

You're right, the case with a leading ',' is caught by the other check.

So the validation mostly relies on cpu_class_by_name() if I'm correct. It's
fine to remove the check. However, it provides explicit error message, which
isn't bad though:

     error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty");

It's definitely not fine to remove an error message that clearly explains
to the user what he has done wrong in favor of QEMU aborting and printing
something cryptic like:

     cpu_class_by_name: Assertion `cpu_model && cc->class_by_name' failed.

Assertions are for bugs, not for bad command line usage.

Yes, Agree as explained previously. The explicit message is a bonus at least.
So please ignore this trivial patch and sorry for the noise.

Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <address@hidden>
   exec.c | 5 -----
   1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
index ffdb518535..3cff459e43 100644
--- a/exec.c
+++ b/exec.c
@@ -963,11 +963,6 @@ const char *parse_cpu_option(const char *cpu_option)
       const char *cpu_type;
model_pieces = g_strsplit(cpu_option, ",", 2);
-    if (!model_pieces[0]) {
-        error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty");
-        exit(1);
-    }
       oc = cpu_class_by_name(CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE, model_pieces[0]);
       if (oc == NULL) {
           error_report("unable to find CPU model '%s'", model_pieces[0]);


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]