Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

bhyve: fix usage formatting
ClosedPublic

Authored by novel on May 14 2018, 6:45 AM.

Details

Summary

Updating '-c' command line option for topology support added a formatting glitch for usage (bhyve -h) output:

...

-A: create ACPI tables            
-c: number of cpus and/or topology specification       -C: include guest memory in core file                                              
-e: exit on unhandled I/O access

...

Add a new line so each option is on its own line.

Diff Detail

Repository
rS FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

novel created this revision.May 14 2018, 6:45 AM
grehan accepted this revision.May 14 2018, 7:09 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 14 2018, 7:09 AM
rgrimes accepted this revision.May 14 2018, 1:22 PM

Thanks for catch Roman, I have prepared a commit and sent it to my mentors for approval, with a fast track 3 day MFC as this made it into stable/11.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
araujo added a subscriber: araujo.May 17 2018, 1:26 PM

Thanks for catch Roman, I have prepared a commit and sent it to my mentors for approval, with a fast track 3 day MFC as this made it into stable/11.

Wait! Do you just committed a patch sent by another developer?

@novel have you approved that?

Best

Thanks for catch Roman, I have prepared a commit and sent it to my mentors for approval, with a fast track 3 day MFC as this made it into stable/11.

Wait! Do you just committed a patch sent by another developer?
@novel have you approved that?
Best

Yes, based on the facts: I was the person that committed the original bug, and @novel has a ports commit bit, so could not of committed this to src without approval.

Thanks for catch Roman, I have prepared a commit and sent it to my mentors for approval, with a fast track 3 day MFC as this made it into stable/11.

Wait! Do you just committed a patch sent by another developer?
@novel have you approved that?
Best

Yes, based on the facts: I was the person that committed the original bug, and @novel has a ports commit bit, so could not of committed this to src without approval.

He could commit as he has the maintainer approve!
Please update yourself regard the practices of the project, lots of people with commit bits in other areas are doing this after we have Phabricator, or otherwise I do believe he would have sent this patch via Bugzilla.

Best,

novel added a comment.EditedMay 17 2018, 2:00 PM

Hey, either way is fine as long as it gets committed!
Of course It's more pleasant to commit on my own, but it's not a big deal.

Thanks for handling that.