Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 1/5] util: Introduce error reporting functions with fatal/abort

[Lluís Vilanova]

Markus Armbruster writes:

> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 03.02.2016 10:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> David Gibson <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:47:35PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> On 02.02.2016 19:53, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>>> Lluís Vilanova <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/qemu/error-report.h b/include/qemu/error-report.h
>>>>>>> index 7ab2355..6c2f142 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/qemu/error-report.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/qemu/error-report.h
>>>>>>> @@ -43,4 +43,23 @@ void error_report(const char *fmt, ...) 
>>>>>>> GCC_FMT_ATTR(1, 2);
>>>>>>> const char *error_get_progname(void);
>>>>>>> extern bool enable_timestamp_msg;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +/* Report message and exit with error */
>>>>>>> +void QEMU_NORETURN error_vreport_fatal(const char *fmt, va_list ap) 
>>>>>>> GCC_FMT_ATTR(1, 0);
>>>>>>> +void QEMU_NORETURN error_report_fatal(const char *fmt, ...) 
>>>>>>> GCC_FMT_ATTR(1, 2);
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This lets people write things like
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> error_report_fatal("The sky is falling");
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> error_report("The sky is falling");
>>>>>> exit(1);
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> fprintf(stderr, "The sky is falling\n");
>>>>>> exit(1);
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think that's an improvement in clarity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The problem is not the existing code, but that in a couple of new
>>>>> patches, I've now already seen that people are trying to use
>>>>> 
>>>>> error_setg(&error_fatal, ... );
>>>> 
>>>> So, I don't actually see any real advantage to error_report_fatal(...)
>>>> over error_setg(&error_fatal, ...).
>>> 
>>> I do.  Compare:
>>> 
>>> (a) error_report(...);
>>> exit(1);
>>> 
>>> (b) error_report_fatal(...);
>>> 
>>> (c) error_setg(&error_fatal, ...);
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, (a) is clearest: even a relatively clueless reader will
>>> know what exit(1) does, can guess what error_report() approximately
>>> does, and doesn't need to know what it does exactly.  (b) is slightly
>>> less obvious, and (c) is positively opaque.
>>> 
>>> Let's stick to the obvious (a) and be done with it.
>> 
>> Ok, (a) is fine for me too, as long as we avoid (c). Lluís, could you
>> maybe add that information to your patch that updates the HACKING text?

> I feel such detailed advice belings into error.h.  Sketch appended.

> If that doesn't succeed in keeping (c) out, make checkpatch flag it.

>> (and sorry for the fuzz with error_report_fatal() ... I thought it would
>> be a good solution to avoid (c), but if (a) is preferred instead, then
>> we should go with that solution instead).

I can easily change that, no problem. I'm just happy consensus is landing on
this subject.


>> And, by the way, what about the spots that currently already use
>> error_setg(&error_abort, ....) ? Should they be turned into
>> error_report() + abort() instead? Or only abort(), without error
>> message, since abort() is only about programming errors?

> As I wrote in my first reply to this thread, I'd like them to be cleaned
> up to just abort() or assert().

> I like assert(), because it gives me exactly what I can use to debug the
> programming error: a core dump (if enabled) and a source location
> (useful when no core dump).  I never bought the argument that we should
> use abort() instead of assert(0) because "what if NDEBUG?!?".  If you
> define NDEBUG, our 600+ abort()s won't save you from our 4000+
> assert()s.

Sorry, but I don't buy the argument of, "I prefer assert() because there's
already lots of them". To me, there's a semantic difference between debug builds
and regular ones (aka, assert vs abort). Also, I think it adds to the confusion
that assert and abort seem to be used interchangeably in the code.

What about this definition?

* exit(): user-triggered errors
* abort(): general programming errors
* assert(): additional sanity/consistency checks against programming errors

Now, abort & assert have an overlap. Should we discourage one in favour of the
other?

Also:

* error_report_fatal ensures the same exit code is always used (otherwise it can
  fail with inconsistent error codes)
* error_report_abort brings the code information of assert into abort

But of course, I'm happy either way :)


> diff --git a/include/qapi/error.h b/include/qapi/error.h
> index 45d6c72..ea7e74f 100644
> --- a/include/qapi/error.h
> +++ b/include/qapi/error.h
> @@ -162,6 +162,9 @@ ErrorClass error_get_class(const Error *err);
>   * human-readable error message is made from printf-style @fmt, ...
>   * The resulting message should be a single phrase, with no newline or
>   * trailing punctuation.
> + * Please don't error_setg(&error_fatal, ...), use error_report() and
> + * exit(), because that's more obvious.
> + * Likewise, don't error_setg(&error_abort, ...), use assert().
>   */
>  #define error_setg(errp, fmt, ...)                              \
>      error_setg_internal((errp), __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__,   \
> @@ -213,6 +216,8 @@ void error_setg_win32_internal(Error **errp,
>   * the error object.
>   * Else, move the error object from @local_err to address@hidden
>   * On return, @local_err is invalid.
> + * Please don't error_propagate(&error_fatal, ...), use
> + * error_report_err() and exit(), because that's more obvious.
>   */
>  void error_propagate(Error **dst_errp, Error *local_err);
 
> @@ -291,12 +296,14 @@ void error_set_internal(Error **errp,
>      GCC_FMT_ATTR(6, 7);
 
>  /*
> - * Pass to error_setg() & friends to abort() on error.
> + * Special error destination to abort on error.
> + * See error_setg() and error_propagate() for details.
>   */
>  extern Error *error_abort;
 
>  /*
> - * Pass to error_setg() & friends to exit(1) on error.
> + * Special error destination to exit(1) on error.
> + * See error_setg() and error_propagate() for details.
>   */
>  extern Error *error_fatal;
 
I see, this will make it clearer for people looking for functions without
reading HACKING. I can add this and reference it from the document.


Thanks,
  Lluis