Re: [PATCH v14 18/22] accel: introduce AccelCPUClass extending CPUClass

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 1/28/21 5:08 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> 
> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> 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?

cpu_realize() is were various feature checks are, isn't it?

  -cpu mycpu,feat1=on,feat2=off
  CPU 'mycpu' can not disable feature 'feat2' because of REASON.

> The bool returning realizefn with Error is a fairly common pattern.
>