On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible > BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by > unreachable goto reset_flash. All this commit does is expanding the > macro, so the smell becomes more poignant, and the macro can be > deleted. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > --- > hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c | 10 ++-------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c > index 9efa7aa9af..f73c30a3ee 100644 > --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c > +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c > @@ -49,12 +49,6 @@ > #include "sysemu/sysemu.h" > #include "trace.h" > > -#define PFLASH_BUG(fmt, ...) \ > -do { \ > - fprintf(stderr, "PFLASH: Possible BUG - " fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__); \ > - exit(1); \ > -} while(0) > - > /* #define PFLASH_DEBUG */ > #ifdef PFLASH_DEBUG > #define DPRINTF(fmt, ...) \ > @@ -624,8 +618,8 @@ static void pflash_write(PFlashCFI01 *pfl, hwaddr offset, > pfl->status |= 0x80; > } else { > DPRINTF("%s: unknown command for \"write block\"\n", > __func__); > - PFLASH_BUG("Write block confirm"); > - goto reset_flash; > + fprintf(stderr, "PFLASH: Possible BUG - Write block > confirm"); > + exit(1);
Don't you want to use hw_error here? hw_error("PFLASH: Possible BUG - Write block confirm"); > } > break; > default: >