From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35047) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fId6s-0003Cq-J5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 12:47:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fId6o-00020R-C5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 12:47:34 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:38376 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 1fId6o-00020G-72 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 12:47:30 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87EEDBB42A for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 16:47:29 +0000 (UTC) References: <1526395713-60357-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <20180515152641.7oaxop77wgzokr7h@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> From: Eric Blake Message-ID: <3543e1cb-85b9-7f50-f97f-e8f2b98b10e0@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 11:47:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180515152641.7oaxop77wgzokr7h@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Andrew Jones , Igor Mammedov Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com, Markus Armbruster 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. 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(). Maybe Markus has an opinion on the best way to word this error message. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org