From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daHdA-0006SB-1q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:25:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daHd6-0004CM-0w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:25:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1daHd5-0004C2-Qc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:25:15 -0400 References: <20170725153330.14966-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20170725153330.14966-9-cohuck@redhat.com> <20170726102013.328a7419@gondolin> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <92aa60de-f5d8-38b3-6d0b-7df97ff5b1c3@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:25:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170726102013.328a7419@gondolin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US 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: Cornelia Huck Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, agraf@suse.de, david@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zyimin@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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