On 9/9/24 12:07, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 9/9/24 11:54, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/9/24 12:17 AM, Andrew.Yuan wrote:
>>> The code 'ops = ACCEL_OPS_CLASS(module_object_class_by_name(ops_name));' is
>>> unnecessary;
>>>
>>> And, the following code :
>>> 1.has the same functionality;
>>> 2.includes error checking;
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew.Yuan <andrew.y...@jaguarmicro.com>
>>> ---
>>> accel/accel-system.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/accel/accel-system.c b/accel/accel-system.c
>>> index f6c947dd82..5d502c8fd8 100644
>>> --- a/accel/accel-system.c
>>> +++ b/accel/accel-system.c
>>> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ void accel_system_init_ops_interfaces(AccelClass *ac)
>>> g_assert(ac_name != NULL);
>>>
>>> ops_name = g_strdup_printf("%s" ACCEL_OPS_SUFFIX, ac_name);
>>> - ops = ACCEL_OPS_CLASS(module_object_class_by_name(ops_name));
>>> +
>>
>> The code you're changing was added by 5141e9a23f ("accel: abort if we fail to
>> load the accelerator plugin") and I think this repetition is intended. If I
>> have
>> to guess (first time looking at this code), ACCEL_OPS_CLASS() is creating
>> the class
>> type QOM functions that the the second module_object_class_by_name() relies
>> on to
>> catch the module load error the commit is trying to address.
>>
>> I'm CCing Claudio to get a better idea of the intention here. At the very
>> least we
>> should add a code comment explaining the reasoning behind initing 'ops' two
>> times
>> in a row and so on.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Daniel
>
> Hi Daniel, just to signal that I've seen this message and will get to it when
> I am back to work later this week.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Claudio
>
Hi all, I think it was my mistake. I already detected it during the PULL
request, but my message was missed at the time I think:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2022-11/msg01056.html
So
Reviewed-by: Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de>
Thanks,
CLaudio
