On 8/23/23 22:06, Laine Stump wrote:
On 8/23/23 3:52 AM, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 8/21/23 21:32, Laine Stump wrote:
>> Normally I wouldn't bother with a change like this, but I was touching
>> the function anyway, and wanted to leave it looking nice and tidy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine(a)redhat.com>
>> ---
>> src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 6 ++----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>> index f676744e9e..a60cbf0ed4 100644
>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
>> @@ -11411,8 +11411,7 @@ qemuNodeDeviceDetachFlags(virNodeDevicePtr dev,
>> */
>> if (STREQ_NULLABLE(driverName, "kvm")) {
>> virReportError(VIR_ERR_ARGUMENT_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
>> - _("'legacy KVM' device assignment is no
longer "
>> - "supported on this system"));
>> + _("'legacy KVM' device assignment is no
>> longer supported on this system"));
>> return -1;
>> }
>> @@ -11423,8 +11422,7 @@ qemuNodeDeviceDetachFlags(virNodeDevicePtr
>> dev,
>> if (!qemuHostdevHostSupportsPassthroughVFIO()) {
>> virReportError(VIR_ERR_ARGUMENT_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
>> - _("VFIO device assignment is currently not "
>> - "supported on this system"));
>> + _("VFIO device assignment is currently not
>> supported on this system"));
>> return -1;
>> }
>>
>
> This got me thinking, whether we should do one huge commit which would
> fix ALL the error messages in all files and just be done with it for
> good. Again, future work, you patch is good as is.
Yep, I had that thought too. I do worry that single giant mega-patches
like that can create merge conflicts later though (since cherry-picking
the mega-patch to resolve one conflict in context can create several
other conflicts), but as you say that can be done (including the
discussion of its relative merits) at another time.
Yeah, that would be a problem, but also such conflicts would be trivial
to resolve.
Michal