VFU_OBJECT_ERROR() reports the error with error_setg(&error_abort,
...) when auto-shutdown is enabled, else with error_report().
Issues:
1. The error is serious enough to warrant aborting the process when
auto-shutdown is enabled, yet harmless enough to permit carrying on
when it's disabled. This makes no sense to me.
2. Like assert(), &error_abort is strictly for programming errors. Is
this one? Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy tells me it's not. Should we
exit(1) instead?
3. qapi/error.h advises "don't error_setg(&error_abort, ...), use
assert()."
This patch addresses just 3. It adds a FIXME comment for the other
two.
Cc: Jagannathan Raman <jag.raman@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <
20250923091000.
3180122-6-armbru@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
[FIXME comment added, commit message adjusted accordingly]
Reviewed-by: Akihiko Odaki <odaki@rsg.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
*/
#define VFU_OBJECT_ERROR(o, fmt, ...) \
{ \
+ error_report((fmt), ## __VA_ARGS__); \
if (vfu_object_auto_shutdown()) { \
- error_setg(&error_abort, (fmt), ## __VA_ARGS__); \
- } else { \
- error_report((fmt), ## __VA_ARGS__); \
+ /* \
+ * FIXME This looks inappropriate. The error is serious \
+ * enough programming error to warrant aborting the process \
+ * when auto-shutdown is enabled, yet harmless enough to \
+ * permit carrying on when it's disabled. Makes no sense. \
+ */ \
+ abort(); \
} \
- } \
+ }
struct VfuObjectClass {
ObjectClass parent_class;