On 06/07/2017 07:10 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Halil Pasic (pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: >> >> >> On 06/07/2017 02:01 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>> * Halil Pasic (pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06/07/2017 01:07 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>>>> * Halil Pasic (pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) 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 <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >> >> You seem to forget, that I'm not proposing omitting this information, >> but extending it with something civilized so one can distinguish between >> an assert failed should have never happened situation an a as good as >> reasonable error handling for an expected error scenario. IMHO the current >> EQUAL looks more like the former (assert) and less like the later (error >> reporting for an expected error scenario). Agree? Dissagree? > > Yes, the current EQUAL is very terse; but we can't actually tell from > the use which case it is; it'll all work nicely when people actually add > the correct hint text in useful locations. >
You are right. Since Juan also requested the adding an extra param to the original macros variant I will go with that. I shied away form it in the first place because I did not want to bother the users of the macros without clarifying with the migration gurus how the new interface should look like. Thanks a lot! Regards, Halil >> Having a field name is great! That's beyond discussion. >> >> I see, my 'sum it up' above was a bit unfortunate: it sounds like I'm >> against the inclusion of technical info and not against a lack of non >> technical info. Sorry for that! > > No, that's fine. >