From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Naesp-0002Rj-HC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:38:47 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Naesl-0002RT-0G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:38:47 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36381 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Naesk-0002RJ-Qv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:38:42 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12482) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Naesk-0005o5-86 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:38:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:38:28 -0200 From: Luiz Capitulino Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/8] QError: Add QMP mode-oriented errors Message-ID: <20100128223828.28928eeb@doriath> In-Reply-To: <4B62145C.5060809@codemonkey.ws> References: <1264686180-29845-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <1264686180-29845-4-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <4B62145C.5060809@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:49:00 -0600 Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/28/2010 07:42 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > Two new errors: > > > > - QERR_QMP_INVALID_MODE_NAME > > - QERR_QMP_INVALID_MODE_TRANSITION > > > > Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino > > --- > > qerror.c | 8 ++++++++ > > qerror.h | 6 ++++++ > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/qerror.c b/qerror.c > > index 6c2aba0..d01354d 100644 > > --- a/qerror.c > > +++ b/qerror.c > > @@ -113,6 +113,14 @@ static const QErrorStringTable qerror_table[] = { > > .desc = "Bad QMP input object", > > }, > > { > > + .error_fmt = QERR_QMP_INVALID_MODE_NAME, > > + .desc = "Mode name %(name) is invalid", > > + }, > > > > This is basically, invalid parameter, no? Yeah.