[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 09/10] s390x/kvm: msi route fixup for non-pci
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 09/10] s390x/kvm: msi route fixup for non-pci |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:13:53 +0200 |
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:00:15 +0200
Halil Pasic <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 08/21/2017 11:16 AM, 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 <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > target/s390x/kvm.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > index 9de165d8b1..d8db1cbf6e 100644
> > --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > @@ -2424,6 +2424,12 @@ 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)) {
> > + /* How can we get here without pci enabled? */
> > + g_assert(false);
>
> You don't tell us about the g_assert in the commit message.
> Do you expect G_DISABLE_ASSERT being defined for production
> builds. I've grepped for G_DISABLE_ASSERT and found nothing.
AFAIK this is set by distribution builds. I've also noticed that mingw
builds treat (g_)assert() as if code flow continues, but I don't know
whether asserts do anything there at all.
>
> And why g_assert over assert (again no guidance in HACKING
> mostly asking for my own learning)?
I do recall a recent(ish) discussion, but not the details. Anyway,
using glib interfaces seems more consistent.
>
> Other that that LGTM.
Thanks!
>
>
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
> > +
> > pbdev = s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx(s390_get_phb(), idx);
> > if (!pbdev) {
> > DPRINTF("add_msi_route no dev\n");
> >
>
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Halil Pasic, 2017/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Halil Pasic, 2017/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Halil Pasic, 2017/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 07/10] s390x/sclp: properly guard pci-specific functions, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/22
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 09/10] s390x/kvm: msi route fixup for non-pci, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/21
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 10/10] s390x: refine pci dependencies, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/21
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 02/10] kvm: remove hard dependency on pci, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/21
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 01/10] 9pfs: fix dependencies, Cornelia Huck, 2017/08/21