Re: [PATCH 9/9] bsd-user: Add -strict

[Richard Henderson]

On 2/10/23 13:18, Warner Losh wrote:
> Most of the time, it's useful to make our best effort, but sometimes we
> want to know right away when we don't implement something. First place
> we use it is for unknown syscalls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
> ---
>   bsd-user/freebsd/os-syscall.c | 4 ++++
>   bsd-user/main.c               | 5 ++++-
>   bsd-user/qemu.h               | 1 +
>   3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/bsd-user/freebsd/os-syscall.c b/bsd-user/freebsd/os-syscall.c
> index 179a20c304b..e2b26ecb8dd 100644
> --- a/bsd-user/freebsd/os-syscall.c
> +++ b/bsd-user/freebsd/os-syscall.c
> @@ -508,6 +508,10 @@ static abi_long freebsd_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num, 
> abi_long arg1,
>   
>       default:
>           qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "Unsupported syscall: %d\n", num);
> +        if (bsd_user_strict) {
> +            printf("Unimplemented system call %d\n", num);
> +            abort();
> +        }

I don't like the raw printf, even if you did write to stderr.
Perhaps just the abort, letting the error message be handled by qemu_log?

> @@ -396,6 +397,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>               trace_opt_parse(optarg);
>           } else if (!strcmp(r, "0")) {
>               argv0 = argv[optind++];
> +        } else if (!strcmp(r, "strict")) {
> +            bsd_user_strict = true;

Perhaps force LOG_UNIMP?  Without -D, you'll get the qemu_log above to stderr.


r~