Re: [PATCH 20/39] hw/ppc: replace assert(false) with g_assert_not_reached()

[BALATON Zoltan]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
> ---
> hw/ppc/spapr_events.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_events.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_events.c
> index cb0eeee5874..38ac1cb7866 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_events.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_events.c
> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ static void spapr_hotplug_req_event(uint8_t hp_id, uint8_t 
> hp_action,
>         /* we shouldn't be signaling hotplug events for resources
>          * that don't support them
>          */
> -        g_assert(false);
> +        g_assert_not_reached();
>         return;
>     }

If break does not make sense after g_assert_not_reached() and removed then 
return is the same here.

It may make the series shorter and easier to check that none of these are 
missed if this is done in the same patch where the assert is changed 
instead of separate patches. It's unlikely that the assert change and 
removal of the following break or return would need to be reverted 
separately so it's a simple enough change to put in one patch in my 
opinion but I don't mink if it's kept separate either.

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan