| Message ID | 20231109225302.401344-2-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390x/pci: small set of fixes | expand |
On 9/11/23 23:53, Matthew Rosato wrote: > The current code assumes that there is always a vfio group, but > that's no longer guaranteed with the iommufd backend when using > cdev. In this case, we don't need to track the vfio dma limit > anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> > --- > hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c > index 59a2e03873..7218583883 100644 > --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c > +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c > @@ -66,7 +66,11 @@ S390PCIDMACount *s390_pci_start_dma_count(S390pciState *s, > > assert(vpdev); > Matter of taste, simpler as: if (!vpdev->vbasedev.group) { return NULL; } > - id = vpdev->vbasedev.group->container->fd; and this line isn't changed. > + if (vpdev->vbasedev.group) { > + id = vpdev->vbasedev.group->container->fd; > + } else { > + return NULL; > + } > > if (!s390_pci_update_dma_avail(id, &avail)) { > return NULL;
[Sent too fast by inadvertence...] Hi Matthew, On 10/11/23 06:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 9/11/23 23:53, Matthew Rosato wrote: >> The current code assumes that there is always a vfio group, but >> that's no longer guaranteed with the iommufd backend when using >> cdev. In this case, we don't need to track the vfio dma limit >> anyway. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c | 6 +++++- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c >> index 59a2e03873..7218583883 100644 >> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c >> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c >> @@ -66,7 +66,11 @@ S390PCIDMACount >> *s390_pci_start_dma_count(S390pciState *s, >> assert(vpdev); > > Matter of taste, simpler as: > > if (!vpdev->vbasedev.group) { > return NULL; > } > >> - id = vpdev->vbasedev.group->container->fd; > > and this line isn't changed. > >> + if (vpdev->vbasedev.group) { >> + id = vpdev->vbasedev.group->container->fd; >> + } else { >> + return NULL; >> + } >> if (!s390_pci_update_dma_avail(id, &avail)) { >> return NULL; > Regards, Phil :)
diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c index 59a2e03873..7218583883 100644 --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c @@ -66,7 +66,11 @@ S390PCIDMACount *s390_pci_start_dma_count(S390pciState *s, assert(vpdev); - id = vpdev->vbasedev.group->container->fd; + if (vpdev->vbasedev.group) { + id = vpdev->vbasedev.group->container->fd; + } else { + return NULL; + } if (!s390_pci_update_dma_avail(id, &avail)) { return NULL;
The current code assumes that there is always a vfio group, but that's no longer guaranteed with the iommufd backend when using cdev. In this case, we don't need to track the vfio dma limit anyway. Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> --- hw/s390x/s390-pci-vfio.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)