From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42768) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aL5zF-0007Yf-D2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 04:20:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aL5zB-0003WL-Ce for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 04:20:33 -0500 References: <1453091083-13931-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <1453091083-13931-7-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <569CAE58.4000705@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:20:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1453091083-13931-7-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3 6/9] pseries: Clean up error handling in spapr_rtas_register() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Gibson , aik@ozlabs.ru, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, armbru@redhat.com Cc: lvivier@redhat.com, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 18.01.2016 05:24, David Gibson wrote: > The errors detected in this function necessarily indicate bugs in the rest > of the qemu code, rather than an external or configuration problem. > > So, a simple assert() is more appropriate than any more complex error > reporting. > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson > --- > hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c | 12 +++--------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c > index 34b12a3..0be52ae 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c > @@ -648,17 +648,11 @@ target_ulong spapr_rtas_call(PowerPCCPU *cpu, sPAPRMachineState *spapr, > > void spapr_rtas_register(int token, const char *name, spapr_rtas_fn fn) > { > - if (!((token >= RTAS_TOKEN_BASE) && (token < RTAS_TOKEN_MAX))) { > - fprintf(stderr, "RTAS invalid token 0x%x\n", token); > - exit(1); > - } > + assert((token >= RTAS_TOKEN_BASE) && (token < RTAS_TOKEN_MAX)); While you're at it, you could also get rid of some superfluous parentheses in that statement: assert(token >= RTAS_TOKEN_BASE && token < RTAS_TOKEN_MAX); > token -= RTAS_TOKEN_BASE; > - if (rtas_table[token].name) { > - fprintf(stderr, "RTAS call \"%s\" is registered already as 0x%x\n", > - rtas_table[token].name, token); > - exit(1); > - } > + > + assert(!rtas_table[token].name); > > rtas_table[token].name = name; > rtas_table[token].fn = fn; > Anyway, patch sounds reasonable, Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth