From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36818) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daJ5P-0007n8-SC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 05:58:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daJ5M-00063x-0C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 05:58:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46716) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daJ5L-00063D-PX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 05:58:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:58:23 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20170726115823.0915b7a3@gondolin> In-Reply-To: References: <20170725153330.14966-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20170725153330.14966-9-cohuck@redhat.com> <20170726102013.328a7419@gondolin> <92aa60de-f5d8-38b3-6d0b-7df97ff5b1c3@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: David Hildenbrand Cc: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, agraf@suse.de, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zyimin@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:37:12 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 26.07.2017 10:25, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 26.07.2017 10:20, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> 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? > > > > At least the current DPRINTF will go unnoticed in 99% of all cases since > > it is not compiled in by default. So I'd say either do a proper > > error_report() or even g_assert() here, or simply drop the patch. > > > > Thomas > > > > I'd vote for g_assert() or simply dropping it. > I don't like dropping the check. I'll go for g_assert().