diff mbox series

[v3,27/32] machine: Print CPU model name instead of CPU type name

Message ID 20230907003553.1636896-28-gshan@redhat.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Unified CPU type check | expand

Commit Message

Gavin Shan Sept. 7, 2023, 12:35 a.m. UTC
The names of supported CPU models instead of CPU types should be
printed when the user specified CPU type isn't supported, to be
consistent with the output from '-cpu ?'.

Correct the error messages to print CPU model names instead of CPU
type names.

Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
---
 hw/core/machine.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé Sept. 7, 2023, 9:05 a.m. UTC | #1
On 7/9/23 02:35, Gavin Shan wrote:
> The names of supported CPU models instead of CPU types should be
> printed when the user specified CPU type isn't supported, to be
> consistent with the output from '-cpu ?'.
> 
> Correct the error messages to print CPU model names instead of CPU
> type names.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> ---
>   hw/core/machine.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


> @@ -1373,11 +1374,18 @@ static void is_cpu_type_supported(MachineState *machine, Error **errp)
>   
>           /* The user specified CPU type isn't valid */
>           if (!mc->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
> -            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type);
> -            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s",
> -                              mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(machine->cpu_type);
> +            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", model);
> +            g_free(model);
> +
> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
> +            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s", model);
> +            g_free(model);
> +
>               for (i = 1; mc->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
> -                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
> +                model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);

cpu_model_from_type() can return NULL:

  char *cpu_model_from_type(const char *typename)
  {
      const char *suffix = "-" CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE;

      if (!object_class_by_name(typename)) {
          return NULL;
      }

Don't we want to skip that case?

                    if (!model) {
                        continue;
                    }

> +                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", model);
> +                g_free(model);
>               }
>   
>               error_append_hint(errp, "\n");
Gavin Shan Sept. 7, 2023, 11:49 p.m. UTC | #2
On 9/7/23 19:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 7/9/23 02:35, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> The names of supported CPU models instead of CPU types should be
>> printed when the user specified CPU type isn't supported, to be
>> consistent with the output from '-cpu ?'.
>>
>> Correct the error messages to print CPU model names instead of CPU
>> type names.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   hw/core/machine.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> 
>> @@ -1373,11 +1374,18 @@ static void is_cpu_type_supported(MachineState *machine, Error **errp)
>>           /* The user specified CPU type isn't valid */
>>           if (!mc->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
>> -            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type);
>> -            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s",
>> -                              mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(machine->cpu_type);
>> +            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", model);
>> +            g_free(model);
>> +
>> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>> +            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s", model);
>> +            g_free(model);
>> +
>>               for (i = 1; mc->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
>> -                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
>> +                model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
> 
> cpu_model_from_type() can return NULL:
> 
>   char *cpu_model_from_type(const char *typename)
>   {
>       const char *suffix = "-" CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE;
> 
>       if (!object_class_by_name(typename)) {
>           return NULL;
>       }
> 
> Don't we want to skip that case?
> 
>                     if (!model) {
>                         continue;
>                     }
> 

No, it's intentional. "(null)" will be printed in this specific case so that
it can be identified quickly and mc->valid_cpu_types[] need to be fixed by
developers.

>> +                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", model);
>> +                g_free(model);
>>               }
>>               error_append_hint(errp, "\n");
> 

Thanks,
Gavin
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé Sept. 8, 2023, 7:56 a.m. UTC | #3
On 8/9/23 01:49, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 9/7/23 19:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 7/9/23 02:35, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>> The names of supported CPU models instead of CPU types should be
>>> printed when the user specified CPU type isn't supported, to be
>>> consistent with the output from '-cpu ?'.
>>>
>>> Correct the error messages to print CPU model names instead of CPU
>>> type names.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   hw/core/machine.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>>> @@ -1373,11 +1374,18 @@ static void 
>>> is_cpu_type_supported(MachineState *machine, Error **errp)
>>>           /* The user specified CPU type isn't valid */
>>>           if (!mc->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
>>> -            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", 
>>> machine->cpu_type);
>>> -            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s",
>>> -                              mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>>> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(machine->cpu_type);
>>> +            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", model);
>>> +            g_free(model);
>>> +
>>> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>>> +            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s", model);
>>> +            g_free(model);
>>> +
>>>               for (i = 1; mc->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
>>> -                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", 
>>> mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
>>> +                model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
>>
>> cpu_model_from_type() can return NULL:
>>
>>   char *cpu_model_from_type(const char *typename)
>>   {
>>       const char *suffix = "-" CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE;
>>
>>       if (!object_class_by_name(typename)) {
>>           return NULL;
>>       }
>>
>> Don't we want to skip that case?
>>
>>                     if (!model) {
>>                         continue;
>>                     }
>>
> 
> No, it's intentional. "(null)" will be printed in this specific case so 
> that
> it can be identified quickly and mc->valid_cpu_types[] need to be fixed by
> developers.

If you want to help developers, use g_assert().
Gavin Shan Sept. 10, 2023, 11:52 p.m. UTC | #4
On 9/8/23 17:56, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 8/9/23 01:49, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> On 9/7/23 19:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 7/9/23 02:35, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>> The names of supported CPU models instead of CPU types should be
>>>> printed when the user specified CPU type isn't supported, to be
>>>> consistent with the output from '-cpu ?'.
>>>>
>>>> Correct the error messages to print CPU model names instead of CPU
>>>> type names.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   hw/core/machine.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>>>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> @@ -1373,11 +1374,18 @@ static void is_cpu_type_supported(MachineState *machine, Error **errp)
>>>>           /* The user specified CPU type isn't valid */
>>>>           if (!mc->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
>>>> -            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type);
>>>> -            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s",
>>>> -                              mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>>>> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(machine->cpu_type);
>>>> +            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", model);
>>>> +            g_free(model);
>>>> +
>>>> +            model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>>>> +            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s", model);
>>>> +            g_free(model);
>>>> +
>>>>               for (i = 1; mc->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
>>>> -                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
>>>> +                model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
>>>
>>> cpu_model_from_type() can return NULL:
>>>
>>>   char *cpu_model_from_type(const char *typename)
>>>   {
>>>       const char *suffix = "-" CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE;
>>>
>>>       if (!object_class_by_name(typename)) {
>>>           return NULL;
>>>       }
>>>
>>> Don't we want to skip that case?
>>>
>>>                     if (!model) {
>>>                         continue;
>>>                     }
>>>
>>
>> No, it's intentional. "(null)" will be printed in this specific case so that
>> it can be identified quickly and mc->valid_cpu_types[] need to be fixed by
>> developers.
> 
> If you want to help developers, use g_assert().
> 

g_assert() wins. It will be included into v4 :)

Thanks,
Gavin
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
index 93a327927f..6b701526ae 100644
--- a/hw/core/machine.c
+++ b/hw/core/machine.c
@@ -1357,6 +1357,7 @@  static void is_cpu_type_supported(MachineState *machine, Error **errp)
     MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(machine);
     ObjectClass *oc = object_class_by_name(machine->cpu_type);
     CPUClass *cc;
+    char *model;
     int i;
 
     /*
@@ -1373,11 +1374,18 @@  static void is_cpu_type_supported(MachineState *machine, Error **errp)
 
         /* The user specified CPU type isn't valid */
         if (!mc->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
-            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type);
-            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s",
-                              mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
+            model = cpu_model_from_type(machine->cpu_type);
+            error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", model);
+            g_free(model);
+
+            model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[0]);
+            error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s", model);
+            g_free(model);
+
             for (i = 1; mc->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
-                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
+                model = cpu_model_from_type(mc->valid_cpu_types[i]);
+                error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", model);
+                g_free(model);
             }
 
             error_append_hint(errp, "\n");