On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 14:20, Markus Armbruster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Peter Maydell <[email protected]> writes:
> > OK. We could make the text clearer then, I think. Maybe
> >
> > "#TypeInfo.instance_init may not fail. #DeviceClass.realize can
> > fail, returning error information to the caller. A device realize
> > method should handle being called again after it has failed once."
> >
> > ?
>
> In general, a function should either do its job, or fail cleanly,
> i.e. without side effects.
>
> For .realize() "without side effects" includes:
>
> * The failed call is invisible to the guest.
>
> * The device behaves as if the failed call never happened.  This means
>   you can try .realize() again.
>
> Does the comment need to spell this out?

If we want that, I think we should spell it out. I have generally
assumed when writing realize functions that the semantics are
"if this fails, the only thing the caller can usefully do with
the object is destroy it". Realize code very very rarely attempts
to cleanly unwind if it finds an error partway through. I would
expect the only cases where it works at all are the ones where
the only errors are "sanity check of property values etc" that
happens up front.

I would prefer it if we did not require this, because I think
it imposes extra burden on implementations in order to provide
something that is not of any benefit to anybody.

Analogy: for unix sockets, you need to first open() and then
connect(). The connect() manpage and the POSIX spec say that if
connect() fails the only thing you can validly do with the socket
is call close(): you're not allowed to keep it around and try
connect() or some other operation on it.

(We also undoubtedly have a lot of bugs where an error in realize
leaves bits of the device visible to the emulation, or doesn't
free things that were allocated, etc. But that's a separate and
uncontroversial kind of bug. We don't notice these because for
almost all devices the response to "realize failed" is that we're
going to exit QEMU, because the device is part of the machine.)

-- PMM

Reply via email to