From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9oi-0000fP-AY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:45:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9oc-0005Bf-Tb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:45:55 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38204) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cl9oc-0005BJ-OG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 02:45:50 -0500 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1488544368-30622-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1488544368-30622-11-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <87efycduf0.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <1ea524b7-bc6b-553a-d548-76faf99fccbb@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:45:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1ea524b7-bc6b-553a-d548-76faf99fccbb@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:10:18 -0600") Message-ID: <87pohtil79.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 10/28] qmp: Improve QMP dispatch error messages List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Eric Blake writes: > On 03/05/2017 02:01 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> @@ -41,15 +41,17 @@ static QDict *qmp_dispatch_check_obj(const QObject *request, Error **errp) >>>> >>>> if (!strcmp(arg_name, "execute")) { >>>> if (qobject_type(arg_obj) != QTYPE_QSTRING) { >>>> - error_setg(errp, "QMP input object member '%s' expects '%s'", >>>> - "execute", "string"); >>>> + error_setg(errp, >>>> + "QMP input object member '%s' must be %s", >>>> + "execute", "a string"); >>> >>> let's avoid formatting like the rest of this patch. >>> > >> Since substantial other work depends on this series, it needs to go in >> sooner rather than later. I'm therefore *dropping* this patch from the >> series. We can then bikeshed^Wpolish to our heart's content without >> holding up other work. > > Agreed. > >> >> That said: what about this? > > Looks better. Do you want R-b now, or when you re-post it as an > official patch? I'll gladly take it either way :)