On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:05:08 +0200
Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 29/07/2020 10.47, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:37:30 +0200
> > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Let's move this part of the code into a separate function to be able
> >> to use it from multiple spots later.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> >> index 146a50760b..9b64eb0c24 100644
> >> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> >> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> >> @@ -223,14 +223,8 @@ static void virtio_setup(void)
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> -int main(void)
> >> +static void ipl_boot_device(void)
> >> {
> >> - sclp_setup();
> >> - css_setup();
> >> - boot_setup();
> >> - find_boot_device();
> >> - enable_subchannel(blk_schid);
> >> -
> >> switch (cutype) {
> >> case CU_TYPE_DASD_3990:
> >> case CU_TYPE_DASD_2107:
> >> @@ -242,8 +236,18 @@ int main(void)
> >> break;
> >> default:
> >> print_int("Attempting to boot from unexpected device type",
> >> cutype);
> >> - panic("");
> >> + panic("\nBoot failed.\n");
> >
> > Maybe "Boot failed: no supported device type"?
>
> The print_int right before already talks about "unexpected device type",
> so I think the simple "Boot failed" should be enough?
Yes, as long as we don't end up with other boot failures printing the
same messages.
