This patch is part of a series that moves towards a consistent use of
g_assert_not_reached() rather than an ad hoc mix of different
assertion mechanisms.

Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
---
 include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
index a11b1baa77b..9283c948e3a 100644
--- a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
+++ b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static inline void s390_topology_setup_cpu(MachineState *ms,
 static inline void s390_topology_reset(void)
 {
     /* Unreachable, CPU topology not implemented for TCG */
-    assert(false);
+    g_assert_not_reached();
 }
 #endif
 
-- 
2.39.2

On Thu, 2024-09-12 at 00:38 -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> This patch is part of a series that moves towards a consistent use of
> g_assert_not_reached() rather than an ad hoc mix of different
> assertion mechanisms.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
> ---
>  include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Reviewed-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>

On 12/9/24 09:38, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> This patch is part of a series that moves towards a consistent use of
> g_assert_not_reached() rather than an ad hoc mix of different
> assertion mechanisms.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
> ---
>   include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

We usually don't precise "include/" in patch subject:
we treat include/FOO as part of FOO area.

On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 12:59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/9/24 09:38, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> > This patch is part of a series that moves towards a consistent use of
> > g_assert_not_reached() rather than an ad hoc mix of different
> > assertion mechanisms.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >   include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> We usually don't precise "include/" in patch subject:
> we treat include/FOO as part of FOO area.

I would say either is OK -- if you do
git log --oneline | grep ' include' |less

you can see plenty of examples where 'include' was used in
the subject-area prefix, especially if, as here, we're changing
just one file.

-- PMM