On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:43:30 +0100
Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
Ok, will do.
There are other patches that introduce new exit(EXIT_FAILURE),
is it fine to use that or should I stick to the style used in nearby code?
>
> Thomas
