[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2] parallel: Allow to disable CONFIG_PARALLEL

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2] parallel: Allow to disable CONFIG_PARALLEL
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 18:01:12 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0

On 11/05/2015 17:52, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 11/05/2015 11:36, Miroslav Rezanina wrote:
>>>>> This patch will make "-parallel" a nop.  The right thing to do is to
>>>>> fail startup whenever -parallel is passed and CONFIG_PARALLEL is disabled.
>>> This was original behavior before 07dc788. Intention of this patch is to
>>> make qemu buildable with CONFIG_PARALLEL disabled.
>> Understood, but in the meanwhile Markus wrote commit 4bc6a3e (parallel:
>> parallel_hds_isa_init() shouldn't fail, 2015-02-04), and you should
>> preserve the logic of that commit.
> I have to admit didn't consider CONFIG_PARALLEL when I wrote the commit.
>>>>> You can move parallel_hds_isa_init and parallel_init to
>>>>> hw/isa/isa-bus.c, or to a new file hw/isa/isa-devices.c.
>>> Moving functions will cause abort with "Unknown device" error.
>> This is the right behavior that we want: exit QEMU, not go on silently
>> without the parallel port.
> I agree silently ignoring command line options isn't nice, but it's
> unfortunately what QEMU has always done.
> In particular, -parallel is silently ignored with the vast majority of
> machine types.  The few machine types that implement it silently ignore
> it only when they fail to create the device.

Right.  However, if I move a VM (that has a parallel port, which already
puts us in a kind of reductio as absurdum) from a QEMU that has parallel
ports to a QEMU that doesn't have them, _and the board does something
about -parallel_, I think there should be a failure.

This is because whoever compiled that QEMU is crippling a board, no
matter what their reasons are.

> I'm fine with changing -parallel to either create the device or fail.
> Seems outside the scope of this series, though.

Why?  Your patch is _already_ trying to "create the device or fail",
even if the failure mode isn't particularly clean.  The thing that can
be debated is whether to keep the abort or require a nicer check, and
I'm not requiring it.


>> If you do not like the abort, you should revert commit 4bc6a3e, and make
>> parallel_hds_isa_init check for failure of parallel_init.  But for me
>> it's okay to just let it abort.

reply via email to

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