On 13.09.21 13:48, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 12:46, Alexander Graf <ag...@csgraf.de> wrote: >> >> On 13.09.21 12:52, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 11:46, Alexander Graf <ag...@csgraf.de> wrote: >>>> Why? You only get to this code path if you already selected -accel hvf. >>>> If even a simple "create scratch vcpu" syscall failed then, pretty >>>> failure when you define -cpu host is the last thing you care about. Any >>>> CPU creation would fail. >>> General design principle -- low level functions should report >>> errors upwards, not barf and exit. >> >> Usually I would agree with you, but here it really does not make sense >> and would make the code significantly harder to read. > It's an unnecessary difference from how we've structured the > KVM code. I don't like those. Every time you put one in to > the code you write you can be fairly sure I'm going to question > it during review... I want to be able to look at the hvf code > and say "ah, yes, this is just the hvf version of the kvm code > we already have".
I'll follow the KVM pattern then ... Alex
