On 8/23/23 22:06, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 8/23/23 3:52 AM, Michal Prívozník wrote:
>> On 8/21/23 21:32, Laine Stump wrote:
>>> Normally I wouldn't bother with a change like this, but I was touching
>>> the function anyway, and wanted to leave it looking nice and tidy.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <la...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 6 ++----
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>>> index f676744e9e..a60cbf0ed4 100644
>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>>> @@ -11411,8 +11411,7 @@ qemuNodeDeviceDetachFlags(virNodeDevicePtr dev,
>>> */
>>> if (STREQ_NULLABLE(driverName, "kvm")) {
>>> virReportError(VIR_ERR_ARGUMENT_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
>>> - _("'legacy KVM' device assignment is no longer "
>>> - "supported on this system"));
>>> + _("'legacy KVM' device assignment is no
>>> longer supported on this system"));
>>> return -1;
>>> }
>>> @@ -11423,8 +11422,7 @@ qemuNodeDeviceDetachFlags(virNodeDevicePtr
>>> dev,
>>> if (!qemuHostdevHostSupportsPassthroughVFIO()) {
>>> virReportError(VIR_ERR_ARGUMENT_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
>>> - _("VFIO device assignment is currently not "
>>> - "supported on this system"));
>>> + _("VFIO device assignment is currently not
>>> supported on this system"));
>>> return -1;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> This got me thinking, whether we should do one huge commit which would
>> fix ALL the error messages in all files and just be done with it for
>> good. Again, future work, you patch is good as is.
>
> Yep, I had that thought too. I do worry that single giant mega-patches
> like that can create merge conflicts later though (since cherry-picking
> the mega-patch to resolve one conflict in context can create several
> other conflicts), but as you say that can be done (including the
> discussion of its relative merits) at another time.
>
Yeah, that would be a problem, but also such conflicts would be trivial
to resolve.
Michal
