From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50063 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PPXUI-0006f9-W1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:36:04 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1PPXUH-0008VI-Ig
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:36:02 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8008)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1PPXUH-0008Uv-Bv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:36:01 -0500
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB69Zx5r029766
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 04:36:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4CFCAEC1.3060900@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:37:05 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1291312009-24351-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<1291312009-24351-4-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<4CF8E2E4.7030901@redhat.com> <4CFC987D.4090104@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CFC987D.4090104@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Fail if detecting an unknown option
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 06.12.2010 09:02, schrieb Jes Sorensen:
> On 12/03/10 13:30, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 02.12.2010 18:46, schrieb Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com:
>>> diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
>>> index d0dc445..f2e1c94 100644
>>> --- a/qemu-img.c
>>> +++ b/qemu-img.c
>>> @@ -304,6 +304,12 @@ static int img_create(int argc, char **argv)
>>>      flags = 0;
>>>      for(;;) {
>>>          c = getopt(argc, argv, "F:b:f:he6o:");
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * Fail if we detect an unknown argument
>>> +         */
>>> +        if (c == '?') {
>>> +            return 1;
>>> +        }
>>>          if (c == -1) {
>>>              break;
>>>          }
>>
>> Why not making it another case in the switch statement below instead of
>> an additional if?
> 
> There is a perfectly logical explanation for that. Doing that would
> require for me to have clue, which is a bit much to expect :)
> 
> That said, we should really do the same for the c == -1 case as well.

That's what I thought at first, too. But then the break relates to the
switch instead of the for, so it would have to become a goto to a new
label. Probably not a big improvement...

Kevin