* Michael S. Tsirkin (m...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:11:16PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
<snip> > > I think your intent here is just to misuse the field_exist function pointer > > as a call for a different reason as a hook for a validator; is it really > > worth > > misusing it like that or is something more explicit worth it? > > Perhaps something passed an Error** so it could pass back what was wrong? > > > Well adding a required field seems valuable by itself, does it not? Maybe; however most fields are always-present, unless they have a test function or minimum version, so it's a little weird to add a 'required' when that's the default. > And there's no way to pass in Error** since none of the callers > has Error**: all of migration still uses stderr to pass > errors. > > So we could add an API but it doesn't seem too valuable. > > Since all callers will use this through a wrapper like VMSTATE_TEST, > it will be easy to change our mind later. Yep, that's fine - was just an idea. Dave -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
