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

[BALATON Zoltan]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> On 9/11/24 07:10, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> > 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
>
> Mostly done this way because it's easy for creating many commits.

As I said I don't mind either way. Now that part of this series is queued 
it's easier to add another patch to remove the return.

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan