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 <coh...@redhat.com>
> ---
> 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.
And why g_assert over assert (again no guidance in HACKING
mostly asking for my own learning)?
Other that that LGTM.
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> pbdev = s390_pci_find_dev_by_idx(s390_get_phb(), idx);
> if (!pbdev) {
> DPRINTF("add_msi_route no dev\n");
>
