Re: [PATCH] pci_dma_rw: return correct value instead of 0

[Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:17:32AM +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> pci_dma_rw currently always returns 0, regardless
> of the result of dma_memory_rw. Adjusted to return
> the correct value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <e.emanuelegiuseppe@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/hw/pci/pci.h | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/hw/pci/pci.h b/include/hw/pci/pci.h
> index c1bf7d5356..41c4ab5932 100644
> --- a/include/hw/pci/pci.h
> +++ b/include/hw/pci/pci.h
> @@ -787,8 +787,7 @@ static inline AddressSpace *pci_get_address_space(PCIDevice *dev)
>  static inline int pci_dma_rw(PCIDevice *dev, dma_addr_t addr,
>                               void *buf, dma_addr_t len, DMADirection dir)
>  {
> -    dma_memory_rw(pci_get_address_space(dev), addr, buf, len, dir);
> -    return 0;
> +    return dma_memory_rw(pci_get_address_space(dev), addr, buf, len, dir);
>  }

I think it's a left over from when we used "void cpu_physical_memory_rw()".

I agree that it is better to return the dma_memory_rw() return value, but
at first look, no one seems to check the return value of pci_dma_rw(),
pci_dma_read(), andpci_dma_write().

Should we make them void?


Anyway, for this patch:

Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>

Thanks,
Stefano