On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:30:21 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 08/04/2013 20:30, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> >> > - cpu_x86_register(cpu, name, &error);
> >> > - if (error) {
> >> > + cpu_x86_register(cpu, name, errp);
> >> > + if (error_is_set(errp)) {
> > So the function now does error checking properly if and only if errp is
> > not NULL. Do we really want to do that?
>
> No, using error_propagate is the correct idiom indeed.
Ok, I'll use error_propagate() in next version.
>
> Paolo
>
> >> > goto out;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > - cpu_x86_parse_featurestr(cpu, features, &error);
> >> > - if (error) {
> >> > + cpu_x86_parse_featurestr(cpu, features, errp);
> >> > + if (error_is_set(errp)) {
> >> > goto out;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > - object_property_set_bool(OBJECT(cpu), true, "realized", &error);
> >> > +out:
> >> > + g_strfreev(model_pieces);
> > Any specific reason you didn't choose to keep 'Error *error = NULL'
> > inside cpu_x86_create() as well, and use error_propagate() here? I
> > believe it would make the patch simpler and easier to review, and at the
> > same time make cpu_x86_init() check for errors properly even if errp is
> > NULL. This is the opposite of what you did on x86_cpu_realizefn() at
> > patch 01/22.
>
