Re: [PATCH 83/84] exec/poison: Do not poison CONFIG_SOFTMMU

[Thomas Huth]

On 08/05/2023 17.14, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 5/8/23 16:27, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 03/05/2023 09.23, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > If CONFIG_USER_ONLY is ok generically, so is CONFIG_SOFTMMU,
> > > because they are exactly opposite.
> >
> > I thought there was a difference ... at least in the past?
> > But looking at meson.build they seem to be handled quite equally now:
> >
> > common_ss.add_all(when: 'CONFIG_SOFTMMU', if_true: [softmmu_ss])
> > common_ss.add_all(when: 'CONFIG_USER_ONLY', if_true: user_ss)
> >
> > Paolo, do you remember whether there was a difference in the past?
>
> No, I don't think so.  Really _none_ of them are okay in general, but now 
> that we have softmmu_ss/user_ss there is a usecase for using them in 
> "generic" sourcesets.  So perhaps we could have something like
>
> /* One of these is always defined in files that can use them.  */
> #if !defined CONFIG_SOFTMMU && !defined CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> #pragma GCC poison CONFIG_SOFTMMU
> #pragma GCC poison CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> #endif

That's the thing that I had in mind:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-03/msg05269.html

... so instead of removing the poison from CONFIG_SOFTMMU, we should likely 
rather try to get CONFIG_USER_ONLY poisoned, too.

 Thomas