From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50588) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddcUz-0000MI-ST for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:19:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddcTu-0007FY-SU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:18:40 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34382) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddcTu-0007AO-Ez for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:17:34 -0400 References: <20170804112946.5247-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20170804112946.5247-8-cohuck@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <234d7d0e-c5ae-44b8-76f5-d94f4f918ac4@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:17:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170804112946.5247-8-cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/9] s390x/pci: fence off instructions for non-pci List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: borntraeger@de.ibm.com, agraf@suse.de, thuth@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zyimin@linux.vnet.ibm.com On 04.08.2017 13:29, Cornelia Huck wrote: > If a guest running on a machine without zpci issues a pci instruction, > throw them an exception. > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck > --- > target/s390x/kvm.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c > index bc62bba5b7..9de165d8b1 100644 > --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c > +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c > @@ -1191,7 +1191,11 @@ static int kvm_clp_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run) > { > uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16; > > - return clp_service_call(cpu, r2); > + if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) { > + return clp_service_call(cpu, r2); > + } else { > + return -1; > + } I am a fan of dropping these else case and returning directly. But that is just my opinion. (applies to all changes in this patch) -- Thanks, David