Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 18 July 2012 12:19, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >> >>> n 18 July 2012 11:20, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> Am 16.07.2012 17:25, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>>> Add a new QError QERR_PROPERTY_SET_AFTER_REALIZE for attempts >>>>> to set a QOM or qdev property after the object/device has been >>>>> realized. This allows a slightly more informative diagnostic >>>>> than the previous "permission denied" message. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> Changes since the v1 (which was sent way back in March...): >>>>> * rebased on master now a pile of qdev/qom changesd have landed >>>>> * fixed some overlong lines >>>>> * avoid gcc '?:' extension >>>>> * a couple of set_ functions in qdev-properties.c are new since v1 >>>>> and needed their QERR_PERMISSION_DENIED checks changing >>>> >>>> This does not yet seem to take into account the discussion with libvirt >>>> and Anthony on what parameters to pass. The ID generalization was >>>> nack'ed by Anthony and a QOM path was suggested as alternative. Could >>>> you please look into that? >>> >>> I'm afraid I'm not really sure what you're referring to here -- >>> do you have a link to a discussion? >>> >>> All I want is for errors printed to the user to be a bit more >>> helpful; the whole qerror infrastructure seems to make it >>> somewhere between difficult and impossible to do that :-( >> >> Yup. One of the reasons why I detest it. >> >> A recent thread on how to recover from this disaster: >> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-06/msg03469.html > > That's interesting but I'm not sure how it's relevant. We already > have QERR_PROPERTY values just this new one, so I don't see why > this is any worse than the ones we have. If we come up with some > new scheme we can convert this with all the rest. And I don't > really want to block "improve this error message" on getting > agreement for some big redesign effort...
I'm not objecting to your patch (I didn't even review it), just pointing out there's a glimmer of hope on the "emitting error messages fit for humans is somewhere between difficult and impossible" front.
