On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:17:25 +0200
David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04.08.2017 13:29, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > If a guest running on a machine without zpci issues a pci instruction,
> > throw them an exception.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > target/s390x/kvm.c | 54
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > index bc62bba5b7..9de165d8b1 100644
> > --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > @@ -1191,7 +1191,11 @@ static int kvm_clp_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct
> > kvm_run *run)
> > {
> > uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
> >
> > - return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
> > + if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
> > + return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
> > + } else {
> > + return -1;
> > + }
>
> I am a fan of dropping these else case and returning directly. But that
> is just my opinion.
>
> (applies to all changes in this patch)
>
>
You are not the first to say that :)
I do prefer this way around, though, and if there aren't strong
objections, I'll keep it like this.
