Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Fix error message when PCI bridge has index <= bus

On 05/23/2016 12:00 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: >  > Commit ff2126225df0 changed the error message to be more > detailed about the failure at hand; however, while the new > error message claims that "bus must be <= index", the error > message is displayed if "idx <= addr->bus", ie. when bus > is bigger than or *equal to* index. >  > Change the error message to report the correct constraint, > and format it in a way that mirrors the check exactly to > make it clearer to people reading the code. The new error > message reads "must be index > bus". > --- > I'm assuming the code, which is pre-existing, is correct > here. CC'ing Laine for insights. >  >   src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c | 4 ++-- >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >  > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c > index 7bd8ee5..650cb2a 100644 > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c > @@ -1598,14 +1598,14 @@ qemuDomainAssignPCIAddresses(virDomainDefPtr def, >                   break; >               } >    > -            /* check if every PCI bridge controller's ID is greater than > +            /* check if every PCI bridge controller's index is greater than >                * the bus it is placed onto >                */ >               if (cont->model == VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_BRIDGE && >                   idx <= addr->bus) { >                   virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, >                                  _("PCI controller at index %d (0x%02x) has " > -                                 "bus='0x%02x', but bus must be <= index"), > +                                 "bus='0x%02x'; must be index > bus"),   ACK, but instead of re-ordering it into something that doesn't sound  like a natural sentence, you could use "larger than" instead of ">", and  word it like this:              PCI controller at index %d (0x%02x) has bus='0x%02x', but  index must be larger than bus   Either way it's going to get the idea across though :-)

Also, a BZ was actually filed about this :-O, so I suppose you should  reference the BZ number (1339900)