On 18.01.2016 05:24, David Gibson wrote: > This function includes a number of explicit fprintf()s for errors. > Change these to use error_report() instead. > > Also replace the single exit(EXIT_FAILURE) with an explicit exit(1), since > the latter is the more usual idiom in qemu by a large margin. > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > --- > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > index 148ca5a..58f26cd 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > @@ -1789,8 +1789,8 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine) > } > > if (spapr->rma_size > node0_size) { > - fprintf(stderr, "Error: Numa node 0 has to span the RMA > (%#08"HWADDR_PRIx")\n", > - spapr->rma_size); > + error_report("Numa node 0 has to span the RMA (%#08"HWADDR_PRIx")", > + spapr->rma_size); > exit(1); > } > > @@ -1856,10 +1856,10 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine) > ram_addr_t hotplug_mem_size = machine->maxram_size - > machine->ram_size; > > if (machine->ram_slots > SPAPR_MAX_RAM_SLOTS) { > - error_report("Specified number of memory slots %" PRIu64 > - " exceeds max supported %d", > - machine->ram_slots, SPAPR_MAX_RAM_SLOTS); > - exit(EXIT_FAILURE); > + error_report("Specified number of memory slots %" > + PRIu64" exceeds max supported %d", > + machine->ram_slots, SPAPR_MAX_RAM_SLOTS);
Why did you change the indentation of the "machine->ram_slots, ..." line here? The original looked better to me. > + exit(1); EXIT_FAILURE still seems to be used quite often in the QEMU sources... All in all, this hunk does not really change anything from a functional point of view, so I'd like to suggest to omit this hunk completely instead to avoid code churn here. Thomas