Hi Phil,
On 12/4/23 09:20, Gavin Shan wrote:
On 12/1/23 20:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 29/11/23 05:20, Gavin Shan wrote:
It's no sense to check the CPU type when mc->valid_cpu_types[0] is
NULL.
This case is a programming error, right? We should simply:
assert(!mc->valid_cpu_types || *mc->valid_cpu_types);
Yes, assert() should be used instead. I will do this like below:
if (mc->valid_cpu_types && machine->cpu_type) {
assert(mc->valid_cpu_types[1] != NULL);
I meant assert(mc->valid_cpu_types[0] != NULL) and sorry for the confusion.
if (mc->valid_cpu_types && machine->cpu_type) {
assert(mc->valid_cpu_types[0] != NULL);
:
}
So the check is skipped for this particular case. The constraint
has been taken when the error messags are appended.
A precise hint for the error message is given when mc->valid_cpu_types[0]
is the only valid entry. Besides, enumeration on mc->valid_cpu_types[0]
when we have mutiple valid entries there is avoided to increase the code
readability, as suggested by Philippe Mathieu-Daudé.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com>
---
hw/core/machine.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Thanks,
Gavin
