On 18 July 2012 12:19, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > >> n 18 July 2012 11:20, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Am 16.07.2012 17:25, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>> Add a new QError QERR_PROPERTY_SET_AFTER_REALIZE for attempts >>>> to set a QOM or qdev property after the object/device has been >>>> realized. This allows a slightly more informative diagnostic >>>> than the previous "permission denied" message. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> Changes since the v1 (which was sent way back in March...): >>>> * rebased on master now a pile of qdev/qom changesd have landed >>>> * fixed some overlong lines >>>> * avoid gcc '?:' extension >>>> * a couple of set_ functions in qdev-properties.c are new since v1 >>>> and needed their QERR_PERMISSION_DENIED checks changing >>> >>> This does not yet seem to take into account the discussion with libvirt >>> and Anthony on what parameters to pass. The ID generalization was >>> nack'ed by Anthony and a QOM path was suggested as alternative. Could >>> you please look into that? >> >> I'm afraid I'm not really sure what you're referring to here -- >> do you have a link to a discussion? >> >> All I want is for errors printed to the user to be a bit more >> helpful; the whole qerror infrastructure seems to make it >> somewhere between difficult and impossible to do that :-( > > Yup. One of the reasons why I detest it. > > A recent thread on how to recover from this disaster: > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-06/msg03469.html
That's interesting but I'm not sure how it's relevant. We already have QERR_PROPERTY values just this new one, so I don't see why this is any worse than the ones we have. If we come up with some new scheme we can convert this with all the rest. And I don't really want to block "improve this error message" on getting agreement for some big redesign effort... -- PMM
