On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 05:34:24PM +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> On 9/8/20 6:01 PM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > > @@ -664,11 +695,11 @@ nodeDeviceGetMdevctlStartCommand(virNodeDeviceDefPtr def,
> > > {
> > > virCommandPtr cmd;
> > > g_autofree char *json = NULL;
> > > - g_autofree char *parent_pci = nodeDeviceFindAddressByName(def->parent);
> > > + g_autofree char *parent_addr = nodeDeviceFindAddressByName(def->parent);
> > >
> > > - if (!parent_pci) {
> > > + if (!parent_addr) {
> > > virReportError(VIR_ERR_NO_NODE_DEVICE,
> > > - _("unable to find PCI address for parent device '%s'"), def->parent);
> > > + _("unable to find address for parent device '%s'"), def->parent);
> > I'm wondering whether "unable to find parent device '%s'" would not suffice,
> > since we're not specifying what type of address we were not able to find - I'm
> > not even sure the address information is important at all.
> >
> > Erik
> >
>
> Erik,
> how about
>
> _("unable to find parent device '%s' by its address"), def->parent);
>
> just to indicate the search criteria but I could also agree to a simple
>
> _("unable to find parent device '%s'"), def->parent);
I'd still go with the latter.
Erik
