From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C846C61DBE for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wzJUm-0007Wg-LL; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:41:12 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wzJUk-0007Kw-H2; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:41:10 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wzJUi-0006Eg-Mm; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:41:10 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 67QH1qC32743328; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:05 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=mZOgRs TZFic1nRQURC9FAXxTJAz+8KIxtpBvFx9zoTk=; b=jM/RmQZQv7/BmZ2Cn7ymxb mkExcpMet48U8s6awzhGr8WDvSSOrIXP/mUkFbpGbKJSI0W/VEiRjNq0+kgzP8sN qhzBTCQQ+O4OzC94bf780CG42GUkxUcAApHGPIx1jKUDULNcHKc6JYt1GVtP9hV5 C3MQUfJZucDeWclsCvJLgX7Tauu1h9RU7lYkmgIbjyraIN1CmMbaLY+lPHnVid7T 4vN+fbq6h34FfIpta9gwdbKxmEl9P4FDOMw60HBIGe/jLEWO0jMafFYB2ymG2GEY UEwubB+sNTnbRv32C032c5s6M4YM6pQATIIyYJnFiqRJSHT+pD/N317ucrQsvwOA == Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4g73er0rd1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.7/8.18.1.7) with ESMTP id 67QJQHmJ025825; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:04 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.69]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4g7rsybhj1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.100]) by smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 67QJf2dm30802442 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:02 GMT Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6D95805D; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6869158057; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.61.21.147] (unknown [9.61.21.147]) by smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:41:01 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <91c8fb44-fcc0-4c94-8494-084d6eaa6504@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:41:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Split virtio-ccw and generic virtio net To: Jared Rossi , Zhuoying Cai , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Cc: mst@redhat.com, borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com, farman@linux.ibm.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, farosas@suse.de, lvivier@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com References: <20260818205324.580199-1-zycai@linux.ibm.com> <20260818205324.580199-2-zycai@linux.ibm.com> <3b52a781-ea4c-4fec-b059-bebecc27ad3f@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Matthew Rosato In-Reply-To: <3b52a781-ea4c-4fec-b059-bebecc27ad3f@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: a6Uit-bRpJo_oYiLiRLg9sIZQ0Li4pxp X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: a6Uit-bRpJo_oYiLiRLg9sIZQ0Li4pxp X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwODI2MDE2NCBTYWx0ZWRfX7FwtOt7pfPDq muIalXlQXI7e/if8YoUqNe+IIA773K+yA6fEaqJFJawRIl3E7+1DBXsDU0y8G3TDcz7S+qi7mzt IGwAQFr2WpdqcdWmGNOF6TY/IHyI+61onzhS5u30nORtATStYqkQ9Iotmjh7OG3JVpsCnT5hnCW 2Zwg3IoRVhYsVLrYkArY6D/zg1CIj+yavng5MbejrosMwLY/kd1tLJ3/pBohY64XWYr9y45DO+g hoPUPYJGpIpYZTc5Bxt0bmzQncl9w8plFQE0HNJl3pGVio2C4w63IAZV6IFUxnkXnfHWB0VgJEn YjwumdcALYEI7VvYeei15mpZN+jDoxZOvqhi/F7Mhdn6oseN5XqWqNveWEA99epP8NucuYW3yhl JrIWZzqpBo8cpLNFy5JcSlPRTpVtuOIw2wDdsASPcBq7iHk+iEYct4vNKVQM7aFWF+b/NkaYPBB mZkBISTXsPIjrHGWVbg== X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=QsRuG1yd c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6a8f4151 cx=c_pps a=aDMHemPKRhS1OARIsFnwRA==:117 a=aDMHemPKRhS1OARIsFnwRA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Sv0fKeRqtYgA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=RnoormkPH1_aCDwRdu11:22 a=uAbxVGIbfxUO_5tXvNgY:22 a=_hCw1mCnnE6vsVbhuAAA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Info: AW1haW4tMjYwODI2MDE2NCBTYWx0ZWRfXzbUfiwM1jqC/ 0/2TOR8bWAw5jV3cFe/LWdEnCBxcWgiMA3hDmHaokukJtg2J+olHZu2IMwLGn7Ec/A7Uu/lrfDw hcz7jhIm70dBhEkn6UNsWuXr+do77Q4= X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1176,Hydra:6.1.134,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-08-26_05,2026-08-26_02,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2606150000 definitions=main-2608260164 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.156.1; envelope-from=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -26 X-Spam_score: -2.7 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On 8/26/26 3:30 PM, Jared Rossi wrote: > > > On 8/26/26 1:33 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote: >>> +bool virtio_net_setup(void) >>> +{ >>> +    switch (virtio_get_device()->ipl_type) { >>> +    case S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW: >>> +        return virtio_ccw_net_setup(); >>> +    default: >>> +        return false; >>> +    } >>> +} >> This patch is largely renaming, but this does seem to have a subtle >> functional change right here. >> >> AFAICT before this patch attempting to netboot with anything other than >> a ccw device would hit >> IPL_assert(iplb.pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW, "IPL_TYPE_CCW expected"); >> >> Now, we will never call virtio_ccw_net_setup(), return false and instead >> bail out with >> "No virtio net device found." >> >> That is new behavior for !IPL_TYPE_CCW after this patch.  For >> IPL_TYPE_PCI, patch 4 will change the behavior again. >> >> That's not a deal-breaker, but I do think it's worth a mention in the >> commit message.  I then also wonder if the message >> "No virtio net device found" >> would be more accurate if it instead read something like: >> "No supported virtio net device found" >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> > > I’m not sure this is a valid concern.  A non-ccw net device would be > rejected before getting to virtio_net_setup() earlier at the > find_boot_device() step either way.  In the case of virtio-net-pci > specifically, it would fail because VIRTIO_ID_NET is not a supported PCI > type yet.  For some sort of non-ccw non-pci netboot device, I believe there > wouldn't ever be an IPLB built for it, so it wouldn’t be recognized as > boot eligible at all.  I don’t think this patch affects any of that. > Based on that description it sounds like we don't even ever to expect to reach the new default: case then, as prior checks should have already weeded out all but the supported IPL_TYPE_* values. Should the default: case have an IPL_assert with its own message then? Thanks, Matt