Re: [PATCH] hw/vfio/pci-quirks: Fix broken legacy IGD passthrough

[Thomas Huth]

On 10/06/2020 09.53, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 6/10/20 9:50 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 10/06/2020 09.31, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 6/10/20 5:51 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> The #ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_IGD in pci-quirks.c is not working since the
>>>> required header config-devices.h is not included, so that the legacy
>>>> IGD passthrough is currently broken. Let's include the right header
>>>> to fix this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1882784
>>>> Fixes: 29d62771c81d8fd244a67c14a1d968c268d3fb19
>>>>        ("hw/vfio: Move the IGD quirk code to a separate file")
>>>
>>> What about shorter tag?
>>>
>>> Fixes: 29d62771c81 ("vfio: Move the IGD quirk code to a separate file")
>>
>> I always forget whether to use the short or the long version for
>> "Fixes:" ... this can hopefully be fixed (if necessary) when the patch
>> gets picked up.
>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c | 1 +
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c b/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c
>>>> index f2155ddb1d..3158390db1 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>>>>   */
>>>>  
>>>>  #include "qemu/osdep.h"
>>>> +#include "config-devices.h"
>>>
>>> I've been wondering how we can avoid that mistake in the
>>> future, but can find anything beside human review.
>>
>> I think in the long term, we should include config-devices.h in osdep.h,
>> just like config-host.h and config-target.h is already included there.
>> Everything else is just too confusing. But then we should also add a
>> mechanism to poison the switches from config-devices.h in common code...
> 
> We only need it for the files under hw/, right?

qtest.c in the main directory includes it, too.

>> thus this likely needs some work and discussion of the patch first, so I
>> think we should go with this change to pci-quirks.c here first to get
>> the regression fixed ASAP.
> 
> Sure, I'm not objecting that.

Sure, I just wanted to make sure that whoever (Alex?) picks up this
patch does not wait for that other solution instead.

 Thomas