From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42187) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daHYP-0005Eh-8x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:20:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daHYL-0001hK-8j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:20:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53080) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daHYL-0001h4-3J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:20:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:20:13 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20170726102013.328a7419@gondolin> In-Reply-To: References: <20170725153330.14966-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20170725153330.14966-9-cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 8/9] s390x/kvm: msi route fixup for non-pci List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, agraf@suse.de, david@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zyimin@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:09:06 +0200 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 25.07.2017 17:33, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > If we don't provide pci, we cannot have a pci device for which we > > have to translate to adapter routes: just return -ENODEV. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck > > --- > > target/s390x/kvm.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c > > index dc3f940b95..fb3e21a3a4 100644 > > --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c > > +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c > > @@ -2424,6 +2424,11 @@ int kvm_arch_fixup_msi_route(struct kvm_irq_routing_entry *route, > > uint32_t idx = data >> ZPCI_MSI_VEC_BITS; > > uint32_t vec = data & ZPCI_MSI_VEC_MASK; > > > > + if (!s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) { > > + DPRINTF("fixup_msi_route on non-pci machine?!\n"); > > + return -ENODEV; > > + } > > + > > pbdev = s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx(s390_get_phb(), idx); > > if (!pbdev) { > > DPRINTF("add_msi_route no dev\n"); > > > > Is this additional check really needed here? I'd rather expect > s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx() to return NULL here already, so we should > already be fine, shouldn't we? Yes, the end result is the same, but (1) better safe than sorry and (2) I can add a debug print here. I had actually considered throwing an error here, as this function really should not be called for !pci. Opinions?