Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 10/12/15 11:29, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Printing CPU registers is not helpful during machine initialization.
>> Moreover, these are straightforward configuration or "can get
>> resources" errors, so dumping core isn't appropriate either. Replace
>> hw_error() by error_report(); exit(1). Matches how we report these
>> errors in other machine initializations.
>>
>> Cc: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net>
>> Cc: qemu-...@nongnu.org
>> Cc: qemu-...@nongnu.org
>> Cc: Guan Xuetao <g...@mprc.pku.edu.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/alpha/dp264.c | 11 ++++++-----
>> hw/arm/highbank.c | 6 ++++--
>> hw/char/exynos4210_uart.c | 9 ++++++---
>> hw/m68k/an5206.c | 4 +++-
>> hw/ppc/mac_newworld.c | 11 ++++++-----
>> hw/ppc/mac_oldworld.c | 16 +++++++++-------
>> hw/ppc/prep.c | 10 ++++++----
>> hw/unicore32/puv3.c | 10 +++++++---
>> 8 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> [...]
>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/prep.c b/hw/ppc/prep.c
>> index 5ad28f7..8f08f07 100644
>> --- a/hw/ppc/prep.c
>> +++ b/hw/ppc/prep.c
>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>> #include "hw/pci/pci_host.h"
>> #include "hw/ppc/ppc.h"
>> #include "hw/boards.h"
>> +#include "qemu/error-report.h"
>> #include "qemu/log.h"
>> #include "hw/ide.h"
>> #include "hw/loader.h"
>> @@ -532,7 +533,7 @@ static void ppc_prep_init(MachineState *machine)
>> kernel_size = load_image_targphys(kernel_filename, kernel_base,
>> ram_size - kernel_base);
>> if (kernel_size < 0) {
>> - hw_error("qemu: could not load kernel '%s'\n", kernel_filename);
>> + error_report("could not load kernel '%s'", kernel_filename);
>> exit(1);
>> }
>> /* load initrd */
>> @@ -541,8 +542,8 @@ static void ppc_prep_init(MachineState *machine)
>> initrd_size = load_image_targphys(initrd_filename, initrd_base,
>> ram_size - initrd_base);
>> if (initrd_size < 0) {
>> - hw_error("qemu: could not load initial ram disk '%s'\n",
>> - initrd_filename);
>> + error_report("could not load initial ram disk '%s'",
>> + initrd_filename);
>
> Shouldn't you add an "exit(1)" here, too?
Yes.
I rechecked the complete series for additional instances of this
mistake, and found none.
>> }
>> } else {
>> initrd_base = 0;
>
> Apart from the missing exit(), the patch looks like a good idea to me.
Thanks!
