At 2019-01-08 00:10:29, "Cornelia Huck" wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:04:35 +
>Peter Maydell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:54:21 +
>> > Peter Maydell wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:48, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> > >
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:04:35 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:54:21 +
> > Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:48, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > Sounds good. But please return anyway in the unplug
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:54:21 +
> Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:48, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > Sounds good. But please return anyway in the unplug case, so that the
> > > code is fine if asserts have been configured out.
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:54:21 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:48, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 22:33:51 +0800
> > Li Qiang wrote:
> >
> > > What do you think of ‘g_assert_not_reached();’. For example:
> > >
> > > else {
> > >
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:48, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 22:33:51 +0800
> Li Qiang wrote:
>
> > What do you think of ‘g_assert_not_reached();’. For example:
> >
> > else {
> > g_assert_not_reached();
> > }
>
> Sounds good. But please return anyway in the unplug case, so that
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 22:33:51 +0800
Li Qiang wrote:
> What do you think of ‘g_assert_not_reached();’. For example:
>
> else {
> g_assert_not_reached();
> }
Sounds good. But please return anyway in the unplug case, so that the
code is fine if asserts have been configured out.
