On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:29:10 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 21:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
> >> +static void vfio_ap_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret;
> >> + char *mdevid;
> >> + Error *local_err = NULL;
> >> + VFIOGroup *vfio_group;
> >> + APDevice *apdev = AP_DEVICE(dev);
> >> + VFIOAPDevice *vapdev = VFIO_AP_DEVICE(apdev);
> >> +
> >> + vfio_group = vfio_ap_get_group(vapdev, &local_err);
> >> + if (!vfio_group) {
> >> + goto out_err;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + vapdev->vdev.ops = &vfio_ap_ops;
> >> + vapdev->vdev.type = VFIO_DEVICE_TYPE_AP;
> >> + mdevid = basename(vapdev->vdev.sysfsdev);
> >> + vapdev->vdev.name = g_strdup_printf("%s", mdevid);
> >> + vapdev->vdev.dev = dev;
> >> +
> >> + ret = vfio_get_device(vfio_group, mdevid, &vapdev->vdev, &local_err);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + goto out_get_dev_err;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* Enable hardware to intepret AP instructions executed on the guest
> >> */
> >> + object_property_set_bool(OBJECT(qdev_get_machine()), true, "apie",
> >> NULL);
> >> +
> >
> > I commented on the old version that this is wrong (if I am not starting
> > to lose my memory). This has to go. (there is no such property, this
> > will simply report an error we ignore)
> >
> > (can most probably be fixed when applying)
> >
>
> +1
> absolutely no problem to remove this line.
> I also tested without this line.
>
Yes, I can simply drop it when applying. Thanks for verifying :)
