On Fri, Jul 23 2021, "wangyanan (Y)" <wangyana...@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2021/7/23 16:02, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 11:43:26PM +0800, Yanan Wang wrote:
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The topology parameters must be specified equal to or great than
>>>> one
>>>> + * or just omitted, explicit configuration like "cpus=0" is not
>>>> allowed.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if ((config->has_cpus && config->cpus == 0) ||
>>>> + (config->has_sockets && config->sockets == 0) ||
>>>> + (config->has_dies && config->dies == 0) ||
>>>> + (config->has_cores && config->cores == 0) ||
>>>> + (config->has_threads && config->threads == 0) ||
>>>> + (config->has_maxcpus && config->maxcpus == 0)) {
>>>> + error_setg(errp, "parameters must be equal to or greater than one
>>>> if provided");
>>> I'd suggest a slight tweak since when seen it lacks context:
>>>
>>> $ ./qemu-system-x86_64 -smp 4,cores=0,sockets=2
>>> qemu-system-x86_64: parameters must be equal to or greater than one if
>>> provided
>>>
>>>
>>> error_setg(errp, "CPU topology parameters must be equal to or greater
>>> than one if provided");
>> Let's scratch "if provided".
>>
>> I'd replace "must be equal to or greater than one" by "must be
>> positive", or maybe "must be greater than zero".
> How about we use "must be greater than zero" ?
> After a grep search of these two sentences in QEMU, they both show up
> in several places. "must be positive" always reports an invalid value that
> is "< 0". While the check in this patch actually reject an invalid zero
> value.
Of the two, I'd prefer "greater than zero".
