On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:33:03 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 13:16, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Replace direct access which implicitly assumes no IDA
> > or MIDA with the new ccw data stream interface which should
> > cope with these transparently in the future.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > hw/s390x/css.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c
> > index 87d913f81c..c1bc9944e6 100644
> > --- a/hw/s390x/css.c
> > +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c
> > @@ -890,6 +890,7 @@ static int css_interpret_ccw(SubchDev *sch, hwaddr
> > ccw_addr,
> > }
> >
> > /* Look at the command. */
> > + ccw_dstream_init(&sch->cds, &ccw, &(sch->orb));
> > switch (ccw.cmd_code) {
> > case CCW_CMD_NOOP:
> > /* Nothing to do. */
> > @@ -903,7 +904,7 @@ static int css_interpret_ccw(SubchDev *sch, hwaddr
> > ccw_addr,
> > }
> > }
> > len = MIN(ccw.count, sizeof(sch->sense_data));
> > - cpu_physical_memory_write(ccw.cda, sch->sense_data, len);
> > + ccw_dstream_write_buf(&sch->cds, sch->sense_data, len);
>
> Don't you need to check the return value ?
>
> > sch->curr_status.scsw.count = ccw.count - len;
> > memset(sch->sense_data, 0, sizeof(sch->sense_data));
> > ret = 0;
> > @@ -930,7 +931,7 @@ static int css_interpret_ccw(SubchDev *sch, hwaddr
> > ccw_addr,
> > } else {
> > sense_id.reserved = 0;
> > }
> > - cpu_physical_memory_write(ccw.cda, &sense_id, len);
> > + ccw_dstream_write_buf(&sch->cds, &sense_id, len);
>
> here too ?
>
> > sch->curr_status.scsw.count = ccw.count - len;
> > ret = 0;
> > break;
> >
>
>
I think Halil wanted to introduce error checking in a patch on top, to
keep changes minimal for now (at least one of the patch submissions
said so).
It isn't worse than before, so putting it into a separate patch is fine
by me.
