On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:56:47AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:54:35PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > Add a missing parentheses at the end of the error message, > >> > when we have an invalid prefix len. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> > >> > --- > >> > net/slirp.c | 3 ++- > >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/net/slirp.c b/net/slirp.c > >> > index 95934fb36d..0f4ae0abc0 100644 > >> > --- a/net/slirp.c > >> > +++ b/net/slirp.c > >> > @@ -498,7 +498,8 @@ static int net_slirp_init(NetClientState *peer, > >> > const char *model, > >> > } > >> > if (vprefix6_len < 0 || vprefix6_len > 126) { > >> > error_setg(errp, > >> > - "Invalid prefix provided (prefix len must be in > >> > range 0-126"); > >> > + "Invalid prefix provided " > >> > + "(prefix len must be in range 0-126)"); > >> > return -1; > >> > } > >> > >> Preexisting: the error message fails to identify the offending > >> parameter. The user needs to make the connection to "ipv6-prefixlen" > >> based on the fact that the only parameters with "prefix" in name or > >> description are "ipv6-prefix" and "ipv6-prefixlen", and only the latter > >> is a length. > >> > >> What about "Parameter 'ipv6-prefixlen' expects a length below 127", or > >> "Parameter 'ipv6-prefixlen' expects a value between 0 and 126"? > > > > "Parameter 'ipv6-prefixlen' expects a value between 0 and 126" should be > > fine. > > > > Otherwise, since other errors didn't refer to the parameter name, we can > > simply add IPv6 in this way: > > "Invalid IPv6 prefix provided (IPv6 prefix len must be between 0 and 126)" > > "len" is not a word. Either say "ipv6-prefixlen", or say "IPv6 prefix > length". > > > But I'm fine also with your proposal. > > It's just a suggestion. Feel free to leave the error messages > consistently vague (apply your patch as is), improve just this one, or > improve more messages.
Your suggestions are very appreciated! I'll resend this patch fixing this error message and I'll check also the other messages. Thanks, Stefano