Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 2/3] vmstate: error hint for failed equal checks part 2

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Halil Pasic (address@hidden) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/07/2017 01:07 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Halil Pasic (address@hidden) wrote:
> >> Verbose error reporting for the _EQUAL family. Modify the standard _EQUAL
> >> so the hint states the assertion probably failed due to a bug. Introduce
> >> _EQUAL_HINT for specifying a context specific hint.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <address@hidden>
> > 
> > I'd prefer not to print 'Bug!?' by default - they already get the
> > message telling them something didn't match and the migration fails.
> > There are none-bug ways of this happening, e.g. a user starting a VM on
> > the source and destination with different configs.
> 
> I admit, my objective with 'Bug!?' was to provoke. My train of thought is
> to encourage the programmer to think about and document the circumstances
> under which such an assertion is supposed to fail (and against which it
> is supposed to guard).
>
> I do not know how skillful are our users but a 4 != 5 then maybe a name
> of a vmstate field is probably quite scary and not very revealing. I doubt
> a non qemu developer can use it for something else that reporting a bug.
>
> Consequently if there are non-bug ways one can use the hint and state them.
> Your example with the misconfigured target, by the way, is IMHO also be due
> to a bug of the management software IMHO.
> 
> To sum it up: IMHO the message provided by a failing _EQUAL is to ugly
> and Qemuspeak to be presented to an user-user in non-bug cases. Agree?
> Disagree?

Disagree.

I don't mind giving field names etc; they make it easy for us as
developers to track down what's happening, but also sometimes they help
endusers work around a prolem or see where the problem is; of course
that varies depending on the field name, but some of our names are
reasonable (e.g. there's a VMSTATE_INT32_EQUAL on 'queue_size' in
vmmouse.c).  They're also pretty good if two end users hit the same
problem they can see the same error message in a bug report.

We often have customer-facing support people look at logs before they
get as far as us developers; if we have bugs that are 
'if it's a failing BLAH device complaining about the BAR field'
then this fixes it, then that helps them find workarounds/fixes quickly
even if they don't understand what the BAR field is.

> 
> > 
> > (I also worry we have a lot f macros for each size;
> > EQUAL, EQUAL_V, EQUAL_V_HINT but I don't know of a better answer for
> > that)
> > 
> 
> If we are going to drop the default hint ('Bug?!' or whatever) then
> I think we could just add an extra NULL hint to each existing  _EQUAL
> usage, re-purpose EQUAL, and forget about introducing new _HINT macros.
> 
> What to you think?

Yes, that would be a lot simpler; and there aren't that many
VMSTATE*EQUAL* macros in use.

Dave

> Regards,
> Halil
> 
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK