On 15/01/2020 16.07, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> ---
> CC: ehabk...@redhat.com
> ---
> hw/core/numa.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/core/numa.c b/hw/core/numa.c
> index 3177066..47d5ea1 100644
> --- a/hw/core/numa.c
> +++ b/hw/core/numa.c
> @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ void numa_complete_configuration(MachineState *ms)
> /* Report large node IDs first, to make mistakes easier to spot */
> if (!numa_info[i].present) {
> error_report("numa: Node ID missing: %d", i);
> - exit(1);
> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -759,7 +759,7 @@ void numa_complete_configuration(MachineState *ms)
> error_report("total memory for NUMA nodes (0x%" PRIx64 ")"
> " should equal RAM size (0x" RAM_ADDR_FMT ")",
> numa_total, ram_size);
> - exit(1);
> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> }
>
> if (!numa_uses_legacy_mem()) {
Please don't. We've had exit(1) vs. exit(EXIT_FAILURE) discussions in
the past already, and IIRC there was no clear conclusion which one we
want to use. There are examples of changes to the numeric value in our
git history (see d54e4d7659ebecd0e1fa7ffc3e954197e09f8a1f for example),
and example of the other way round (see 4d1275c24d5d64d22ec4a30ce1b6a0
for example).
Your patch series here is already big enough, so I suggest to drop this
patch from the series. If you want to change this, please suggest an
update to CODING_STYLE.rst first so that we agree upon one style for
exit() ... otherwise somebody else might change this back into numeric
values in a couple of months just because they have a different taste.
Thomas
