[libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: Fix error message when PCI bridge has index <= bus

[Laine Stump]

On 05/23/2016 12:00 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> Commit ff2126225df0 changed the error message to be more
> detailed about the failure at hand; however, while the new
> error message claims that "bus must be <= index", the error
> message is displayed if "idx <= addr->bus", ie. when bus
> is bigger than or *equal to* index.
>
> Change the error message to report the correct constraint,
> and format it in a way that mirrors the check exactly to
> make it clearer to people reading the code. The new error
> message reads "must be index > bus".
> ---
> I'm assuming the code, which is pre-existing, is correct
> here. CC'ing Laine for insights.
>
>   src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
> index 7bd8ee5..650cb2a 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
> @@ -1598,14 +1598,14 @@ qemuDomainAssignPCIAddresses(virDomainDefPtr def,
>                   break;
>               }
>   
> -            /* check if every PCI bridge controller's ID is greater than
> +            /* check if every PCI bridge controller's index is greater than
>                * the bus it is placed onto
>                */
>               if (cont->model == VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCI_BRIDGE &&
>                   idx <= addr->bus) {
>                   virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
>                                  _("PCI controller at index %d (0x%02x) has "
> -                                 "bus='0x%02x', but bus must be <= index"),
> +                                 "bus='0x%02x'; must be index > bus"),

ACK, but instead of re-ordering it into something that doesn't sound 
like a natural sentence, you could use "larger than" instead of ">", and 
word it like this:

          PCI controller at index %d (0x%02x) has bus='0x%02x', but 
index must be larger than bus

Either way it's going to get the idea across though :-)

Also, a BZ was actually filed about this :-O, so I suppose you should 
reference the BZ number (1339900)

>                                  idx, idx, addr->bus);
>                   goto cleanup;
>               }