On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:29:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 3:27 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:25:53PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 3:15 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > +int kvm_get_vm_type(MachineState *ms, const char *vm_type) > > > > > > > > The 'vm_type' parameter is never used here. What value is it expected > > > > to have, and should be diagnosing an error if some unexpected value > > > > is provided. > > > > > > It's the value of the kvm-type machine property, if any; but no x86 > > > machine defines one, so right now it's always NULL. I left it in > > > because then it's clearer than this is an implementation of > > > mc->kvm_type, but I can remove it or pass it down to > > > x86_confidential_guest_kvm_type(). > > > > If we expect it to always be NULL, lets validate that is the > > case and error_report + exit, if not. > > I think it's enough to have an assertion in x86_kvm_type(): > > /* > * No x86 machine has a kvm-type property. If one is added that has > * it, it should call kvm_get_vm_type() directly or not use it at all. > */ > assert(vm_type == NULL);
Sure, that's fine too. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
