| Message ID | 20191206063337.39764-1-gshan@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | exec: Remove the duplicated check in parse_cpu_option() | expand |
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:33:37 +1100 Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: > The @cpu_option shouldn't be NULL, otherwise assertion from g_strsplit() > should be raised as below message indicates. So it's meaningless to validate > @model_pices[0] in parse_cpu_option() as it shouldn't be NULL either. > > qemu-system-aarch64: GLib: g_strsplit: assertion 'string != NULL' failed > > This just removes the check and unused message. > Hrm... the check isn't about @cpu_option being NULL. It is about filtering out invalid syntaxes like: -cpu '' or -cpu ,some-prop > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> > --- > exec.c | 5 ----- > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > index ffdb518535..3cff459e43 100644 > --- a/exec.c > +++ b/exec.c > @@ -963,11 +963,6 @@ const char *parse_cpu_option(const char *cpu_option) > const char *cpu_type; > > model_pieces = g_strsplit(cpu_option, ",", 2); > - if (!model_pieces[0]) { > - error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); > - exit(1); > - } > - > oc = cpu_class_by_name(CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE, model_pieces[0]); > if (oc == NULL) { > error_report("unable to find CPU model '%s'", model_pieces[0]);
On 12/7/19 3:58 AM, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:33:37 +1100 > Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The @cpu_option shouldn't be NULL, otherwise assertion from g_strsplit() >> should be raised as below message indicates. So it's meaningless to validate >> @model_pices[0] in parse_cpu_option() as it shouldn't be NULL either. >> >> qemu-system-aarch64: GLib: g_strsplit: assertion 'string != NULL' failed >> >> This just removes the check and unused message. >> > > Hrm... the check isn't about @cpu_option being NULL. It is about filtering out > invalid syntaxes like: > > -cpu '' > > or > > -cpu ,some-prop > Greg, Thanks for your review on this trivial patch. @cpu_option[0] is NULL when we have "-cpu ''". We run into assertion raised by subsequent cpu_class_by_name(). However, @cpu_option[0] isn't NULL with something like "-cpu ,xxx", but the CPU model specific class can't be found at last. So the validation mostly relies on cpu_class_by_name() if I'm correct. It's fine to remove the check. However, it provides explicit error message, which isn't bad though: error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> >> --- >> exec.c | 5 ----- >> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c >> index ffdb518535..3cff459e43 100644 >> --- a/exec.c >> +++ b/exec.c >> @@ -963,11 +963,6 @@ const char *parse_cpu_option(const char *cpu_option) >> const char *cpu_type; >> >> model_pieces = g_strsplit(cpu_option, ",", 2); >> - if (!model_pieces[0]) { >> - error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); >> - exit(1); >> - } >> - >> oc = cpu_class_by_name(CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE, model_pieces[0]); >> if (oc == NULL) { >> error_report("unable to find CPU model '%s'", model_pieces[0]); > Regards, Gavin
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:56:55 +1100 Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/7/19 3:58 AM, Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:33:37 +1100 > > Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> The @cpu_option shouldn't be NULL, otherwise assertion from g_strsplit() > >> should be raised as below message indicates. So it's meaningless to validate > >> @model_pices[0] in parse_cpu_option() as it shouldn't be NULL either. > >> > >> qemu-system-aarch64: GLib: g_strsplit: assertion 'string != NULL' failed > >> > >> This just removes the check and unused message. > >> > > > > Hrm... the check isn't about @cpu_option being NULL. It is about filtering out > > invalid syntaxes like: > > > > -cpu '' > > > > or > > > > -cpu ,some-prop > > > > Greg, Thanks for your review on this trivial patch. > > @cpu_option[0] is NULL when we have "-cpu ''". We run into assertion raised > by subsequent cpu_class_by_name(). However, @cpu_option[0] isn't NULL with > something like "-cpu ,xxx", but the CPU model specific class can't be found > at last. > You're right, the case with a leading ',' is caught by the other check. > So the validation mostly relies on cpu_class_by_name() if I'm correct. It's > fine to remove the check. However, it provides explicit error message, which > isn't bad though: > > error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); > It's definitely not fine to remove an error message that clearly explains to the user what he has done wrong in favor of QEMU aborting and printing something cryptic like: cpu_class_by_name: Assertion `cpu_model && cc->class_by_name' failed. Assertions are for bugs, not for bad command line usage. > >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> exec.c | 5 ----- > >> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > >> index ffdb518535..3cff459e43 100644 > >> --- a/exec.c > >> +++ b/exec.c > >> @@ -963,11 +963,6 @@ const char *parse_cpu_option(const char *cpu_option) > >> const char *cpu_type; > >> > >> model_pieces = g_strsplit(cpu_option, ",", 2); > >> - if (!model_pieces[0]) { > >> - error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); > >> - exit(1); > >> - } > >> - > >> oc = cpu_class_by_name(CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE, model_pieces[0]); > >> if (oc == NULL) { > >> error_report("unable to find CPU model '%s'", model_pieces[0]); > > > > Regards, > Gavin > Cheers, -- Greg
On 12/8/19 3:51 AM, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:56:55 +1100 > Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 12/7/19 3:58 AM, Greg Kurz wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:33:37 +1100 >>> Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The @cpu_option shouldn't be NULL, otherwise assertion from g_strsplit() >>>> should be raised as below message indicates. So it's meaningless to validate >>>> @model_pices[0] in parse_cpu_option() as it shouldn't be NULL either. >>>> >>>> qemu-system-aarch64: GLib: g_strsplit: assertion 'string != NULL' failed >>>> >>>> This just removes the check and unused message. >>>> >>> >>> Hrm... the check isn't about @cpu_option being NULL. It is about filtering out >>> invalid syntaxes like: >>> >>> -cpu '' >>> >>> or >>> >>> -cpu ,some-prop >>> >> >> Greg, Thanks for your review on this trivial patch. >> >> @cpu_option[0] is NULL when we have "-cpu ''". We run into assertion raised >> by subsequent cpu_class_by_name(). However, @cpu_option[0] isn't NULL with >> something like "-cpu ,xxx", but the CPU model specific class can't be found >> at last. >> > > You're right, the case with a leading ',' is caught by the other check. > >> So the validation mostly relies on cpu_class_by_name() if I'm correct. It's >> fine to remove the check. However, it provides explicit error message, which >> isn't bad though: >> >> error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); >> > > It's definitely not fine to remove an error message that clearly explains > to the user what he has done wrong in favor of QEMU aborting and printing > something cryptic like: > > cpu_class_by_name: Assertion `cpu_model && cc->class_by_name' failed. > > Assertions are for bugs, not for bad command line usage. > Yes, Agree as explained previously. The explicit message is a bonus at least. So please ignore this trivial patch and sorry for the noise. >>>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> exec.c | 5 ----- >>>> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c >>>> index ffdb518535..3cff459e43 100644 >>>> --- a/exec.c >>>> +++ b/exec.c >>>> @@ -963,11 +963,6 @@ const char *parse_cpu_option(const char *cpu_option) >>>> const char *cpu_type; >>>> >>>> model_pieces = g_strsplit(cpu_option, ",", 2); >>>> - if (!model_pieces[0]) { >>>> - error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); >>>> - exit(1); >>>> - } >>>> - >>>> oc = cpu_class_by_name(CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE, model_pieces[0]); >>>> if (oc == NULL) { >>>> error_report("unable to find CPU model '%s'", model_pieces[0]); >>> Regards, Gavin
diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c index ffdb518535..3cff459e43 100644 --- a/exec.c +++ b/exec.c @@ -963,11 +963,6 @@ const char *parse_cpu_option(const char *cpu_option) const char *cpu_type; model_pieces = g_strsplit(cpu_option, ",", 2); - if (!model_pieces[0]) { - error_report("-cpu option cannot be empty"); - exit(1); - } - oc = cpu_class_by_name(CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE, model_pieces[0]); if (oc == NULL) { error_report("unable to find CPU model '%s'", model_pieces[0]);
The @cpu_option shouldn't be NULL, otherwise assertion from g_strsplit() should be raised as below message indicates. So it's meaningless to validate @model_pices[0] in parse_cpu_option() as it shouldn't be NULL either. qemu-system-aarch64: GLib: g_strsplit: assertion 'string != NULL' failed This just removes the check and unused message. Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> --- exec.c | 5 ----- 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)