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 <[email protected]>
---
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
