On 06.04.20 11:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.04.20 11:29, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06.04.20 11:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>>> static inline bool s390_is_pv(void)
>>>> @@ -41,6 +42,7 @@ int s390_pv_unpack(uint64_t addr, uint64_t size,
>>>> uint64_t tweak);
>>>> void s390_pv_perf_clear_reset(void);
>>>> int s390_pv_verify(void);
>>>> void s390_pv_unshare(void);
>>>> +void s390_machine_inject_pv_error(CPUState *cs);
>>>> #else /* CONFIG_KVM */
>>>> static inline bool s390_is_pv(void) { return false; }
>>>> static inline int s390_pv_vm_enable(void) { return 0; }
>>>> @@ -50,6 +52,7 @@ static inline int s390_pv_unpack(uint64_t addr, uint64_t
>>>> size, uint64_t tweak) {
>>>> static inline void s390_pv_perf_clear_reset(void) {}
>>>> static inline int s390_pv_verify(void) { return 0; }
>>>> static inline void s390_pv_unshare(void) {}
>>>> +static inline void s390_machine_inject_pv_error(CPUState *cs) {};
>>>
>>> I'd suggest renaming that to s390_pv_inject_error() or similar right away.
>>
>
> Me again: I guess "s390_pv_inject_reset_error()" is what it's really
> doing :)
I will use that unless Conny complains.
