On 6/10/20 9:59 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 10/06/2020 09.53, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 6/10/20 9:50 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 10/06/2020 09.31, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> On 6/10/20 5:51 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> The #ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_IGD in pci-quirks.c is not working since the >>>>> required header config-devices.h is not included, so that the legacy >>>>> IGD passthrough is currently broken. Let's include the right header >>>>> to fix this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1882784 >>>>> Fixes: 29d62771c81d8fd244a67c14a1d968c268d3fb19 >>>>> ("hw/vfio: Move the IGD quirk code to a separate file") >>>> >>>> What about shorter tag? >>>> >>>> Fixes: 29d62771c81 ("vfio: Move the IGD quirk code to a separate file") >>> >>> I always forget whether to use the short or the long version for >>> "Fixes:" ... this can hopefully be fixed (if necessary) when the patch >>> gets picked up. >>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c | 1 + >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c b/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c >>>>> index f2155ddb1d..3158390db1 100644 >>>>> --- a/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c >>>>> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci-quirks.c >>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ >>>>> */ >>>>> >>>>> #include "qemu/osdep.h" >>>>> +#include "config-devices.h" >>>> >>>> I've been wondering how we can avoid that mistake in the >>>> future, but can find anything beside human review. >>> >>> I think in the long term, we should include config-devices.h in osdep.h, >>> just like config-host.h and config-target.h is already included there. >>> Everything else is just too confusing. But then we should also add a >>> mechanism to poison the switches from config-devices.h in common code... >> >> We only need it for the files under hw/, right? > > qtest.c in the main directory includes it, too.
hw/ and qtests could include "hw/hw.h" instead of affecting all the codebase via "qemu/osdep.h". *but* we have qdevs in target/ too... so either we think about cleaning them, or we accept it is a lost cause (micro-architecture bits are tied with hardware) and are doomed. > >>> thus this likely needs some work and discussion of the patch first, so I >>> think we should go with this change to pci-quirks.c here first to get >>> the regression fixed ASAP. >> >> Sure, I'm not objecting that. > > Sure, I just wanted to make sure that whoever (Alex?) picks up this > patch does not wait for that other solution instead. > > Thomas >
