Il 13/04/2012 16:21, Andreas Färber ha scritto: > Am 13.04.2012 16:08, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >> Il 13/04/2012 16:06, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >>> I'm still talking about the (pretty clear to me) graph that I posted. >>> There, object A's init function creates a new qdev object - . Creating >>> an object can fail - fatally or non-fatally. >>> >>> And yes, exactly my point, currently initfn (first stage) cannot fail, >>> only the second stage (DeviceClass::init). Which is why I've been saying >>> we'll need to refactor those "fake composition" usages first before we >>> declare that we can defer qdev initialization to vl.c. >> >> But why should they fail? This is what I also asked. If instance-init >> is deterministic, it will either always or never fail (besides cases >> like memory allocation which cannot really be handled correctly). > > Indeed I am thinking of trivial memory allocation for starters, yes. > This is not just a theoretical issue as I have two such reports in my > Bugzilla already.
Are they public? Haven't we long agreed that exit(1) is the right thing to do on OOM? Paolo
