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