Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes:
> 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)
>
> ?
Done.
> series
> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
Thanks!
