Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 09/10] s390x/kvm: msi route fixup for non-pci

[Cornelia Huck]

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");
> >   
>