On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 05:34:24PM +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
On 9/8/20 6:01 PM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > @@ -664,11 +695,11 @@ nodeDeviceGetMdevctlStartCommand(virNodeDeviceDefPtr
def,
> > {
> > virCommandPtr cmd;
> > g_autofree char *json = NULL;
> > - g_autofree char *parent_pci =
nodeDeviceFindAddressByName(def->parent);
> > + g_autofree char *parent_addr =
nodeDeviceFindAddressByName(def->parent);
> >
> > - if (!parent_pci) {
> > + if (!parent_addr) {
> > virReportError(VIR_ERR_NO_NODE_DEVICE,
> > - _("unable to find PCI address for parent device
'%s'"), def->parent);
> > + _("unable to find address for parent device
'%s'"), def->parent);
> I'm wondering whether "unable to find parent device '%s'"
would not suffice,
> since we're not specifying what type of address we were not able to find -
I'm
> not even sure the address information is important at all.
>
> Erik
>
Erik,
how about
_("unable to find parent device '%s' by its address"),
def->parent);
just to indicate the search criteria but I could also agree to a simple
_("unable to find parent device '%s'"), def->parent);
I'd still go with the latter.
Erik