From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47348) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIdsq-0002UO-Rn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 13:37:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIdsm-0007E8-Um for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 13:37:08 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:45290 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIdsm-0007Ds-QU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 13:37:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4097A4201AE5 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 17:37:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <1526395713-60357-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <20180515152641.7oaxop77wgzokr7h@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <3543e1cb-85b9-7f50-f97f-e8f2b98b10e0@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 19:37:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3543e1cb-85b9-7f50-f97f-e8f2b98b10e0@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Tue, 15 May 2018 11:47:28 -0500") Message-ID: <87eficu8g1.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] numa: clarify error message when node index is out of range in -numa dist, ... List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: Andrew Jones , Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com Eric Blake writes: > On 05/15/2018 10:26 AM, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:48:33PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>> When using following CLI: >>> -numa dist,src=128,dst=1,val=20 >>> user gets a rather confusing error message: >>> "Invalid node 128, max possible could be 128" >>> >>> Where 128 is number of nodes that QEMU supports (MAX_NODES), >>> while src/dst is an index up to that limit, so it should be >>> MAX_NODES - 1 in error message. >>> Make error message to explicitly state valid range for node >>> index to be more clear. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones >>> --- > >>> if (src >= MAX_NODES || dst >= MAX_NODES) { >>> error_setg(errp, >>> - "Invalid node %d, max possible could be %d", >>> - MAX(src, dst), MAX_NODES); >>> + "Invalid node %d, The valid node range is [0 - %d]", >> ^ should be a '.' >> >> And maybe need a '.' at the end of the second sentence too, as it's not >> an error phrase, but a real sentence. >> >>> + MAX(src, dst), MAX_NODES - 1); >>> return; >>> } > > Actually, error_setg() is documented as taking a single phrase (no '.' > included), and that if you need a second sentence, it's better to use > error_append_hint(). Correct. Providing help on valid values is exactly what error_append_hint() is for. > Maybe Markus has an opinion on the best way to > word this error message. Yes: "Parameter 'src' expects an integer between 0 and 127" Referring to an erroneous key=value by value is not nice. What if the value occurs in multiple places, and is valid in at least one? key is there, it's unique[*], so use it. [*] Except in the few places that use repeated keys to form lists. Ugh.