Quoting Janosch Frank (2023-03-23 11:39:12)
[...]
> diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c
> index d92571b5..b23d51c9 100644
> --- a/s390x/uv-host.c
> +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c
> @@ -370,6 +370,38 @@ static void test_cpu_create(void)
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
>
> +/*
> + * If the first bit of the rc is set we need to destroy the
> + * configuration before testing other create config errors.
> + */
> +static void cgc_destroy_if_needed(struct uv_cb_cgc *uvcb)
Is there a reason why we can't make this a cgc_uv_call() function which performs the uv_call and the cleanups if needed?
Mixing reports and cleanup activity feels a bit odd to me.
[...]
> +/* This function expects errors, not successes */
I am confused by this comment. What does it mean?
> +static bool cgc_check_data(struct uv_cb_cgc *uvcb, uint16_t rc_expected)
Rename to cgc_check_rc_and_handle?
> +{
> + cgc_destroy_if_needed(uvcb);
> + /*
> + * We should only receive a handle when the rc is 1 or the
> + * first bit is set.
Where is the code that checks for rc == 1?
Ah OK, so that's what you mean with the comment above, this function only works if the UVC fails, right?
> + */
> + if (!(uvcb->header.rc & UVC_RC_DSTR_NEEDED_FLG) && uvcb->guest_handle)
> + return false;
It would be nicer if I got a proper report message that tells me that we got a handle even though we shouldn't destroy.
