qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-4.0 v9 10/16] qemu_thread: supplement error


From: Fei Li
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-4.0 v9 10/16] qemu_thread: supplement error handling for h_resize_hpt_prepare
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 14:20:10 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0


在 2019/1/4 下午1:21, David Gibson 写道:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 09:41:49PM +0800, Fei Li wrote:
在 2019/1/3 上午11:43, David Gibson 写道:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 02:44:17PM +0800, 李菲 wrote:
在 2019/1/2 上午10:36, David Gibson 写道:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:04:43PM +0800, Fei Li wrote:
Add a local_err to hold the error, and return the corresponding
error code to replace the temporary &error_abort.

Cc: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
Cc: David Gibson <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Fei Li <address@hidden>
This looks like a good change, but it no longer applies due to a
change in the qemu_thread_create() signature.
Sorry that I am not sure whether I understand. Do you mean using
&error_abort is more suitable for this handling, rather than report
the &local_err & return a failure reason?
No, I just mean that context has been altered by a global change and
the patch will need to be fixed up to cope with that.
Just to be clearer: does the "global change" mean the "[patch 06/16]
qemu_thread: Make qemu_thread_create() handle errors properly", or another
patch not in this patch series?

If it means the [patch 06/16], I want to explain more: the 06/16 handles all
qemu_thread_create() by passing &error_abort as the parameter, and the
following patches are to improve on the &error_abort for callers who can
handle more properly. E.g. if qemu_thread_create() fails in
h_resize_hpt_prepare(),
I think reporting the &local_err & returning the failure reason is more
proper
than just abort() inside qemu_thread_create() when calls error_setg_errno().

In other words, this patch is actually written to apply to patch 06. And I
have
no clue where it needs to be fixed up. Please correct me if I understand
wrong.


Have a nice day, thanks :)
Ah, sorry.  Since I was only CCed on this patch, not the rest of the
series, I assumed it was independent and didn't think to check the
earlier patches of the series.
A good reminder, CCing all during the review stage seems more reasonable. :)

So, yes, I think the global change I'm referring to is 6/16, which I
didn't have, so that explains the problem.

In that case it's probably best if this goes in via the same tree the
rest of the series is going to.  So, with the H_HARDWARE change made:

Acked-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>

Thanks for the review!

Have a nice day ;)
Fei


Fei


---
    hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 12 ++++++++----
    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
index 5bc2cf4540..7c16ade04a 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
@@ -478,6 +478,7 @@ static target_ulong h_resize_hpt_prepare(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
        sPAPRPendingHPT *pending = spapr->pending_hpt;
        uint64_t current_ram_size;
        int rc;
+    Error *local_err = NULL;
        if (spapr->resize_hpt == SPAPR_RESIZE_HPT_DISABLED) {
            return H_AUTHORITY;
@@ -538,10 +539,13 @@ static target_ulong h_resize_hpt_prepare(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
        pending->shift = shift;
        pending->ret = H_HARDWARE;
-    /* TODO: let the further caller handle the error instead of abort() here */
-    qemu_thread_create(&pending->thread, "sPAPR HPT prepare",
-                       hpt_prepare_thread, pending,
-                       QEMU_THREAD_DETACHED, &error_abort);
+    if (!qemu_thread_create(&pending->thread, "sPAPR HPT prepare",
+                            hpt_prepare_thread, pending,
+                            QEMU_THREAD_DETACHED, &local_err)) {
+        error_reportf_err(local_err, "failed to create hpt_prepare_thread: ");
+        g_free(pending);
+        return H_RESOURCE;
I also think H_HARDWARE would be a better choice here.  Although the
failure is due to a resource constraint, it's not because the guest
asked for too much, just because the host is in dire straits.  From
the guest's point of view it's basically a hardware failure.
Ok, thanks. Will use H_HARDWARE instead.

Have a nice day, thanks for the review. :)
Fei
+    }
        spapr->pending_hpt = pending;




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]