Am 27.10.2015 um 16:50 hat John Snow geschrieben: > > > On 10/26/2015 10:26 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 10/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Snow wrote: > >> Reported-by: Max Reitz <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: John Snow <[email protected]> > >> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> qemu-io-cmds.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/qemu-io-cmds.c b/qemu-io-cmds.c > >> index 44d24e8..92c6b87 100644 > >> --- a/qemu-io-cmds.c > >> +++ b/qemu-io-cmds.c > >> @@ -146,6 +146,21 @@ static int64_t cvtnum(const char *s) > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> +static void print_cvtnum_err(int64_t rc, const char *arg) > >> +{ > >> + switch (rc) { > >> + case -EINVAL: > >> + printf("Parsing error: non-numeric argument," > >> + " or extraneous/unrecognized suffix -- %s\n", arg); > >> + break; > >> + case -ERANGE: > >> + printf("Parsing error: argument too large -- %s\n", arg); > >> + break; > >> + default: > >> + printf("Parsing error -- %s\n", arg); > > > > I still think ':' is better than ' --' in error messages, but I'll leave > > it up to the maintainer. > > Crud, sorry Eric -- I didn't do this on purpose. As Kevin notes, I was > just trying to match the existing format. I can change it and send again > if you want. Whatever is easiest for people.
I think you need to respin for patch 1 anyway, so changing it in the next version sounds good. You can keep my R-b when doing this. Kevin
