Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/10] pseries: Clean up error handling in spapr_rtas_register()

[Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>]

On 01/20/2016 09:58 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/15/2016 05:00 AM, 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 <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>> ---
>>   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));
>
> You could drop the redundant () while touching this, as in:


Seriously? Why? I personally find it really annoying (but I stay silent) 
when people omit braces in cases like this.


> assert(token >= RTAS_TOKEN_BASE && token < RTAS_TOKEN_MAX);
>


-- 
Alexey