On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:21:18 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 12:01:23PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:06:03 +0200
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c
> > > index 789275f..f9f87ba 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/s390/kvm/virtio_ccw.c
> > > @@ -758,6 +758,13 @@ static int virtio_ccw_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > struct virtio_feature_desc *features;
> > > struct ccw1 *ccw;
This needs
+ struct virtio_device *vdev = &vcdev->vdev;
to make it compile :)
> > >
> > > + if (vcdev->revision == 1 &&
> >
> > If we decide to keep this check, it should be for rev >= 1, though.
>
> Fine, though this is theoretical, right?
> Ican change this with a patch on top.
>
> > > + !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
> > > + dev_err(&vdev->dev, "virtio: device uses revision 1 "
> > > + "but does not have VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ccw = kzalloc(sizeof(*ccw), GFP_DMA | GFP_KERNEL);
> > > if (!ccw)
> > > return 0;
> >
> > I'm still not convinced by this change: I'd prefer to allow rev 1
> > without VERSION_1, especially as the core makes all its decisions based
> > upon VERSION_1.
>
> At the moment, but this is an implementation detail.
> This is exactly why I want this hard requirement in code.
>
>
> > Unless someone else has a good argument in favour of
> > this change.
>
>
> Let's not commit to something we are not sure we
> can support.
>
> We can always remove this code, but once we release
> guest we won't be able to drop it.
>
OK, with your qemu patch on the host side this seems to be fine. No
further objections from me for now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
