On 01/27/2010 02:00 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes:
On 01/20/2010 06:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster<arm...@redhat.com>
---
monitor.c | 4 ++--
qemu-monitor.hx | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
index 816f6fd..b9166c3 100644
--- a/monitor.c
+++ b/monitor.c
@@ -808,11 +808,11 @@ static void do_info_cpus(Monitor *mon, QObject **ret_data)
*ret_data = QOBJECT(cpu_list);
}
-static void do_cpu_set(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict)
+static void do_cpu_set(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict, QObject **ret_data)
{
int index = qdict_get_int(qdict, "index");
if (mon_set_cpu(index)< 0)
- monitor_printf(mon, "Invalid CPU index\n");
+ qemu_error_new(QERR_INVALID_CPU_INDEX);
Just out of curiousity, why introduce a new error verses using
(QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER, "index")?
To avoid changing the non-QMP monitor. If you don't care about that, I
can revert 5/6 and update 6/6.
Yes, I don't mind changing error messages in the human monitor.
Alternatively, here's a trick to reduce the number of client visible QMP
errors while still keeping the old diagnostic on the non-QMP monitor:
+#define QERR_INVALID_CPU_INDEX \
+ "{ 'class': 'InvalidParameter, 'data': { 'name': 'index' } }"
+
#define QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER \
"{ 'class': 'InvalidParameter', 'data': { 'name': %s } }"
Not a bad idea if you think it's important. I don't think it is
though. I think the chances of anyone relying on specific error
messages on the monitor is very, very low.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
