Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > wrote: >> >> On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible >> > BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by >> > unreachable goto reset_flash. All this commit does is expanding the >> > macro, so the smell becomes more poignant, and the macro can be >> > deleted. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> > --- >> > hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c | 10 ++-------- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c >> > index 9efa7aa9af..f73c30a3ee 100644 >> > --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c >> > +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c >> > @@ -49,12 +49,6 @@ >> > #include "sysemu/sysemu.h" >> > #include "trace.h" >> > >> > -#define PFLASH_BUG(fmt, ...) \ >> > -do { \ >> > - fprintf(stderr, "PFLASH: Possible BUG - " fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__); \ >> > - exit(1); \ >> > -} while(0) >> > - >> > /* #define PFLASH_DEBUG */ >> > #ifdef PFLASH_DEBUG >> > #define DPRINTF(fmt, ...) \ >> > @@ -624,8 +618,8 @@ static void pflash_write(PFlashCFI01 *pfl, hwaddr >> > offset, >> > pfl->status |= 0x80; >> > } else { >> > DPRINTF("%s: unknown command for \"write block\"\n", >> > __func__); >> > - PFLASH_BUG("Write block confirm"); >> > - goto reset_flash; >> > + fprintf(stderr, "PFLASH: Possible BUG - Write block >> > confirm"); >> > + exit(1); >> >> Don't you want to use hw_error here? >> >> hw_error("PFLASH: Possible BUG - Write block confirm"); > > This should just be > qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR, ...); > (replacing both the DPRINTF and the PFLASH_BUG()). > > It's triggerable by a guest (if it puts the device into write-block > mode and then feeds it a bogus command byte), so it's just a guest > error, not an issue with our model of the pflash.
I can do that. Thanks!