Re: [PATCH v2 85/86] numa: make exit() usage consistent

[Thomas Huth]

On 16/01/2020 18.10, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:43:30 +0100
> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 15/01/2020 16.07, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>> CC: address@hidden
>>> ---
>>>  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?

Since we don't have a consensus yet, I guess it's ok to use it ... but
adapting to the surrounding code is also a good idea, of course.

 Thomas