Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>> while ((ch = getopt_long(argc, argv, sopts, lopts, &opt_ind)) != -1) {
>> switch (ch) {
>> @@ -367,6 +372,24 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> case 'p':
>> enter_protected_mode = true;
>> break;
>> + case 'm':
>> + memory_size = strtoull(optarg, &endptr, 0);
>> + switch (*endptr) {
>> + case 'G': case 'g':
>> + memory_size <<= 10;
>> + case '\0':
>> + case 'M': case 'm':
>> + memory_size <<= 10;
>> + case 'K': case 'k':
>> + memory_size <<= 10;
>> + break;
>>
>
> Cute trick with the fall-through and shifts... not quite Duff's
> device, but cute. Please consider adding a /* fallthrough */ comment
> to make it obvious.
>
I'll make it more clear and send out the series again tomorrow when
others have gotten a chance to review.
>> + default:
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> + "Unrecongized memory suffix: %c\n",
>> + *endptr);
>> + exit(1);
>> + }
>> + break;
>>
>
> How about adding a sanity check that memory_size makes sense here
> rather than having kvm_create() fail obscurely? For example if the
> user got the memory size wrong for some reason we'll end up with
> memory_size = 0 here.
>
There's an exit(1) and it's using stroull() so the only way that
memory_size could equal 0 is if the user specified --memory=0. I'm not
sure I agree it's worth checking for that sort of circumstance, perhaps
the user had a reason for doing it?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> Cheers,
> Muli
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
