On 12/03/10 13:30, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 02.12.2010 18:46, schrieb jes.soren...@redhat.com:
>> diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
>> index d0dc445..f2e1c94 100644
>> --- a/qemu-img.c
>> +++ b/qemu-img.c
>> @@ -304,6 +304,12 @@ static int img_create(int argc, char **argv)
>> flags = 0;
>> for(;;) {
>> c = getopt(argc, argv, "F:b:f:he6o:");
>> + /*
>> + * Fail if we detect an unknown argument
>> + */
>> + if (c == '?') {
>> + return 1;
>> + }
>> if (c == -1) {
>> break;
>> }
>
> Why not making it another case in the switch statement below instead of
> an additional if?
There is a perfectly logical explanation for that. Doing that would
require for me to have clue, which is a bit much to expect :)
That said, we should really do the same for the c == -1 case as well.
Fixed in next version.
Cheers,
Jes
