qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/7] s390x: fix error propagation in kvm-flic's


From: Halil Pasic
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/7] s390x: fix error propagation in kvm-flic's realize
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:08:52 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0


On 07/04/2017 04:46 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/04/2017 04:31 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Tue,  4 Jul 2017 16:07:55 +0200
>> Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Halil Pasic <address@hidden>
>>>
>>> From the moment it was introduced by commit a2875e6f98 ("s390x/kvm:
>>> implement floating-interrupt controller device", 2013-07-16) the kvm-flic
>>> is not making realize fail properly in case it's impossible to create the
>>> KVM device which basically serves as a backend and is absolutely
>>> essential for having an operational kvm-flic.
>>>
>>> Let's fix this by making sure we do proper error propagation in realize.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <address@hidden>
>>> Fixes: a2875e6f98 "s390x/kvm: implement floating-interrupt controller 
>>> device"
>>> Reviewed-by: Dong Jia Shi <address@hidden>
>>> Reviewed-by: Yi Min Zhao <address@hidden>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>      cd.type = KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC;
>>>      ret = kvm_vm_ioctl(kvm_state, KVM_CREATE_DEVICE, &cd);
>>>      if (ret < 0) {
>>> -        trace_flic_create_device(errno);
>>> -        return;
>>> +        error_setg_errno(&errp_local, errno, "Creating the KVM device 
>>> failed");
>>> +        trace_flic_no_device_api(errno);
>>
>> Err... this should still be trace_flic_create_device(), no?
> 
> I'm afraid you are right! Probably a copy paste error :/
> 

Do you think the traces are still appropriate once we have
proper error propagation?

I did not feel comfortable removing them but thinking again,
than might be the thing to do.

@Christian:
I think we should really fix this the one way or the other.
Can you tell me what is the proper procedure?

>>
>>> +        goto fail;
>>>      }
>>>      flic_state->fd = cd.fd;
>>
> 
> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]