Re: [PATCH for-5.2 3/6] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Move the inner logic of find_subch() to a separate function

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 03/08/2020 10.46, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:37:31 +0200
> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Move the code to a separate function to be able to re-use it from a
>> different spot later.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c | 99
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 57
>> insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
>> index 9b64eb0c24..9477313188 100644
>> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
>> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
>> @@ -51,6 +51,60 @@ unsigned int get_loadparm_index(void)
>>      return atoui(loadparm_str);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int check_sch_no(int dev_no, int sch_no)
>> +{
>> +    bool is_virtio;
>> +    Schib schib;
>> +    int r;
>> +
>> +    blk_schid.sch_no = sch_no;
>> +    r = stsch_err(blk_schid, &schib);
>> +    if (r == 3 || r == -EIO) {
>> +        return -EIO;
>> +    }
>> +    if (!schib.pmcw.dnv) {
>> +        return false;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    enable_subchannel(blk_schid);
>> +    cutype = cu_type(blk_schid);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * Note: we always have to run virtio_is_supported() here to make
>> +     * sure that the vdev.senseid data gets pre-initialized correctly
>> +     */
>> +    is_virtio = virtio_is_supported(blk_schid);
>> +
>> +    /* No specific devno given, just return 1st possibly bootable
>> device */
>> +    if (dev_no < 0) {
>> +        switch (cutype) {
>> +        case CU_TYPE_VIRTIO:
>> +            if (is_virtio) {
>> +                /*
>> +                 * Skip net devices since no IPLB is created and
>> therefore
>> +                 * no network bootloader has been loaded
>> +                 */
>> +                if (virtio_get_device_type() != VIRTIO_ID_NET) {
>> +                    return true;
>> +                }
> 
> here it seems you are returning true for any non-network virtio device,
> is this the intended behaviour? (I know it was like this in the old
> code) like, non-block devices?

Yes. Other devices are already ignored by the virtio_is_supported() call
some lines earlier in this function.

 Thomas