* Cornelia Huck (coh...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:00:34 +0100 > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > > > Modify the pre_save method on VMStateDescription to return an int > > rather than void so that it potentially can fail. > > > > Changed zillions of devices to make them return 0; the only > > case I've made it return non-0 is hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c that already > > had an error_report/return case. > > Never thought that this device would be at the bleeding edge ;)
It's the one case that had bothered to do a proper error. > > > > Note: If you add an error exit in your pre_save you must emit > > an error_report to say why. > > Would it make sense to relay an error object? For example, > cpu_pre_save() in target/s390x/machine.c calls > kvm_s390_vcpu_interrupt_pre_save() which already does an error report. > If we relay that error instead, we would avoid saying "oops, this > didn't work" several times with decreasing amount of information. > > On the other hand, that change would be more invasive. Right, and it's very very verbose. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > --- > > > hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c | 6 ++++-- > > > hw/s390x/css.c | 10 +++++++--- > > hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 4 +++- > > > target/s390x/machine.c | 4 +++- > > That said, the changes in s390-related code look fine. Thanks. Dave -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
