On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:50:54 +0200
Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 11:09 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:43:48 +0200
> > Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/24/2017 09:38 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 08/23/2017 05:54 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>>> Some non-pci code calls into zpci code. Provide some stubs for builds
> >>>> without pci.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> hw/s390x/Makefile.objs | 3 +-
> >>>> hw/s390x/s390-pci-stub.c | 74
> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>> create mode 100644 hw/s390x/s390-pci-stub.c
> >
> >>>> +/* hw/s390x/sclp.c */
> >>>> +void s390_pci_sclp_configure(SCCB *sccb)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +void s390_pci_sclp_deconfigure(SCCB *sccb)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >>> shouldnt these function set an error code in the sccb, e.g.
> >>> something like
> >>>
> >>> sccb->h.response_code = cpu_to_be16(SCLP_RC_INVALID_SCLP_COMMAND);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh you have something like that in patch 7. Maybe move?
> >
> > Does not really change anything in practice, but I can move it.
> >
>
> You mean these stubs are not supposed to be reachable and are just
> for making the linker happy, or? If that's the case I would prefer
> having that expressed by something like assert(false) or even
> #define NOT_REACHABLE assert(false).
Without the last patch that makes virtio-pci depend on pci for s390x,
you can't compile without pci anyway ;)
>
> Otherwise patch looks good, but I did not a full review on it,
> so let's try this:
> Acked-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
Thanks!
