On 02/16/16 15:57, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We set machine_class to the default first, and update it to the real
> one later. Any use of machine_class in between is almost certainly
> wrong. Set it once and for all instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> ---
> vl.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 7918e9f..098728c 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -2748,8 +2748,9 @@ static const QEMUOption *lookup_opt(int argc, char
> **argv,
> return popt;
> }
>
> -static void set_machine_options(MachineClass **machine_class)
> +static MachineClass *select_machine(MachineClass *dflt)
> {
> + MachineClass *machine_class = dflt;
> const char *optarg;
> QemuOpts *opts;
> Location loc;
> @@ -2761,16 +2762,17 @@ static void set_machine_options(MachineClass
> **machine_class)
>
> optarg = qemu_opt_get(opts, "type");
> if (optarg) {
> - *machine_class = machine_parse(optarg);
> + machine_class = machine_parse(optarg);
> }
>
> - if (*machine_class == NULL) {
> + if (!machine_class) {
> error_report("No machine specified, and there is no default");
> error_printf("Use -machine help to list supported machines\n");
> exit(1);
> }
>
> loc_pop(&loc);
> + return machine_class;
> }
>
> static int machine_set_property(void *opaque,
> @@ -3075,7 +3077,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
> os_setup_early_signal_handling();
>
> module_call_init(MODULE_INIT_MACHINE);
> - machine_class = find_default_machine();
> cpu_model = NULL;
> snapshot = 0;
> cyls = heads = secs = 0;
> @@ -4066,7 +4067,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>
> replay_configure(icount_opts);
>
> - set_machine_options(&machine_class);
> + machine_class = select_machine(find_default_machine());
>
> set_memory_options(&ram_slots, &maxram_size, machine_class);
>
>
Sorry for not being more responsive in this thread. I read through the
patches now (including this one), and they look good to me.
I have one suggestion for the commit message of this patch, after
checking "vl.c" (and keeping the earlier patches of the series in mind):
after the statement
Any use of machine_class in between is almost certainly wrong
can you please observe
(there are no such uses right now)
?
series
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
Thanks
Laszlo
