On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:41:49 -0500 Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 03/14/2011 03:22 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:45:13 -0500 > > Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> On 03/14/2011 02:37 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >>> qerror_abort() only exists for debugging purposes. I won't say its > >>> perfect, > >>> but it's better than nothing and has already saved some time when writing > >>> new errors. > >>> > >>> I'm fine dropping it as long as there's a better replacement, which is > >>> not the case here. There's even a hunk that replaces qerror_abort() for > >>> a plain abort(). > >> Yes, that's the replacement. > > It's not a good one: it makes the current code a bit worse and we don't know > > how and when the error classes are going to be replaced. > > Yes, we do, before 0.15.0. Very optimistic :) I don't doubt you can post patches quickly, but we're likely going to have fun discussions, respins, tests etc. And all the QAPI stuff in parallel. > > Maybe a better merge plan would be to work on errors first. Completely drop > > qerror according to qapi needs, and then put the rest of the stuff on top. > > Can't be done until we introduce new QMP commands to get rid of the old > HMP commands because there are HMP commands without equivalents that > make use of qerror_report(). > > There are just a handful of these left in my QAPI branch so once I can > start adding these QMP commands, they'll be gone quickly. I don't want > to introduce a bunch of new QMP commands without this stuff getting > merged upstream first though. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori >
