On 17.06.19 08:54, Klaus Birkelund wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:39:27PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 06.06.19 11:25, Klaus Birkelund Jensen wrote: >>> The device mistakenly reports that the Weighted Round Robin with Urgent >>> Priority Class arbitration mechanism is supported. >>> >>> It is not. >> >> I believe you based on the fact that there is no “weight” or “priority” >> anywhere in nvme.c, and that it does not evaluate the Arbitration >> Mechanism Selected field. >> > > Not sure if you want me to change the commit message? Feel free to > change it if you want to ;)
Oh, no, no. It’s just that I have no idea how the NVMe interface works (well, I did download the spec then, but...), so this was basically just my excuse for “I can review this!!”. >>> Signed-off-by: Klaus Birkelund Jensen <klaus.jen...@cnexlabs.com> >>> --- >>> hw/block/nvme.c | 1 - >>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/block/nvme.c b/hw/block/nvme.c >>> index 30e50f7a3853..415b4641d6b4 100644 >>> --- a/hw/block/nvme.c >>> +++ b/hw/block/nvme.c >>> @@ -1383,7 +1383,6 @@ static void nvme_realize(PCIDevice *pci_dev, Error >>> **errp) >>> n->bar.cap = 0; >>> NVME_CAP_SET_MQES(n->bar.cap, 0x7ff); >>> NVME_CAP_SET_CQR(n->bar.cap, 1); >>> - NVME_CAP_SET_AMS(n->bar.cap, 1); >> >> I suppose the better way would be to pass 0, so it is more explicit, I >> think. >> >> (Just removing it looks like it may have just been forgotten.) >> > > Not explicitly setting it to zero aligns with how the other fields in > CAP are also left out if kept at zero. If we explicitly set it to zero I > think we should also set all the other fields that way (DSTRD, NSSRS, > etc.). OK then. Thanks, applied to my block branch: https://git.xanclic.moe/XanClic/qemu/commits/branch/block Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
