[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Fix error message when PCI bridge has index <= bus



On 05/23/2016 12:00 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
Commit ff2126225df0 changed the error message to be more
detailed about the failure at hand; however, while the new
error message claims that "bus must be <= index", the error
message is displayed if "idx <= addr->bus", ie. when bus
is bigger than or *equal to* index.

Change the error message to report the correct constraint,
and format it in a way that mirrors the check exactly to
make it clearer to people reading the code. The new error
message reads "must be index > bus".
---
I'm assuming the code, which is pre-existing, is correct
here. CC'ing Laine for insights.

  src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
index 7bd8ee5..650cb2a 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
@@ -1598,14 +1598,14 @@ qemuDomainAssignPCIAddresses(virDomainDefPtr def,
                  break;
              }
- /* check if every PCI bridge controller's ID is greater than
+            /* check if every PCI bridge controller's index is greater than
               * the bus it is placed onto
               */
              if (cont->model == VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_BRIDGE &&
                  idx <= addr->bus) {
                  virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
                                 _("PCI controller at index %d (0x%02x) has "
-                                 "bus='0x%02x', but bus must be <= index"),
+                                 "bus='0x%02x'; must be index > bus"),

ACK, but instead of re-ordering it into something that doesn't sound like a natural sentence, you could use "larger than" instead of ">", and word it like this:

PCI controller at index %d (0x%02x) has bus='0x%02x', but index must be larger than bus

Either way it's going to get the idea across though :-)

Also, a BZ was actually filed about this :-O, so I suppose you should reference the BZ number (1339900)

                                 idx, idx, addr->bus);
                  goto cleanup;
              }



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]