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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A5AC433DB for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 20:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C7BC64DE7 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 20:29:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2C7BC64DE7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:33896 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5aOG-0003d4-4W for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:29:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50688) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5aCI-0004nA-0w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:16:53 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:22154) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l5aCE-0002U8-10 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:16:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611951404; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kh6JoibPGK7sPnRMKy0LxXkZTWoEBghgV9GyNkIND90=; b=Iwt+htlI602nW2V6sTg52uDgVRP/NVkVtwFq2Ocu+aMFPvWTt6nkgYcuHBRF0dFHJOEopO jdQhu/7u8lLW7o6mSj+MdOCTrzQUvzsgKbgZJzL51oqLnvKobXADffjJ5YiN3htHJoUi6N VxjBBdVezKANtGqvk+EEE8AEV1mKjGs= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-111-2js0Yt3WN6ycgWRe4VbeBA-1; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:16:42 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 2js0Yt3WN6ycgWRe4VbeBA-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id l13so5825949wrq.7 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:16:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kh6JoibPGK7sPnRMKy0LxXkZTWoEBghgV9GyNkIND90=; b=T5lw8/GZplEkzifr1wnCEh3t3u/jdKZ6Jpvtz09cN/IVJZjjm+7juQHaVxopJVxvwb IcEgpYmG3T6Sq18qjXvAOM8p/+/VuGbSHDjhEM9nBRVltsgfrLexuc/pPNXsv65rx4hg rsuBRpwx/PzSRD6FfYkVBjBhRuBVpccupC1xh8pkkAAjFUwtvmg6VwHH4FTfggnVC3wx QAyiWftmHCFUfOyKv1Xf5a/PGyYUwiADjM1s5GYlkPH6SybREMBC1UY+ig7jTx5V3d7s cYlB7ndg0bF179RQD/91oTvLdo5mZf4sQ8N1csZ3J8np0+nhlqIIzmBlfO5t3Vb8jDOL OGBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nNjOn6zia7dxTMquLmYMYa2QfJVngi8ZBap5l2FUFet9hz9gl irWqVh/UYs9d7vaA2WEGO0AFpbhj1wnErHVVLsfkEMoFjQOnoakQOurx62KFuTSnmmnmQuku0fz /19ecQ/KZlDwCTWA= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5411:: with SMTP id g17mr6444421wrv.54.1611951401423; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:16:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxc2TE8iX1ujuXhiI22NL1r+jzfD/Ys4QaGB17u9O1EYhl3k+PpcmDYiElo3Xpy5D0rFUUGqA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5411:: with SMTP id g17mr6444412wrv.54.1611951401232; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:16:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:b07:6468:f312:5e2c:eb9a:a8b6:fd3e? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:5e2c:eb9a:a8b6:fd3e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t205sm11706451wmt.28.2021.01.29.12.16.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:16:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pci: add romsize property To: BALATON Zoltan References: <20210129192838.582771-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20210129192838.582771-3-pbonzini@redhat.com> <9aae8014-8f86-ad1c-1a67-f08312aeb8d9@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <21978acc-179d-457a-18ee-1db0a9d4cd63@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 21:16:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=pbonzini@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.249, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=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: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: mst@redhat.com, lersek@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peterx@redhat.com, dgilbert@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 29/01/21 21:06, BALATON Zoltan wrote: >> The empty property value configures the device not to have a ROM file >> at all. The commit message says that ROM files (if they exist) cannot >> be empty, corresponding to this code in pci_add_option_rom: >> >>    } else if (size == 0) { >>        error_setg(errp, "romfile \"%s\" is empty", pdev->romfile); >>        g_free(path); >>        return; >>    } > > OK, then it was just not clear to me that the commit message talks about > the romfile itself and not the property. > > By the way, does it make sense to compare uint32_t value to -1 and could > that provoke some compiler/sanitiser warnings? Is it better to have a > signed type or use UINT32_MAX or simlar instead? There is probably some warning for it but I think not even -Wextra enables it by default. Paolo