On 30/07/2020 09:41, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:17:32AM +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:pci_dma_rw currently always returns 0, regardless of the result of dma_memory_rw. Adjusted to return the correct value. Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <e.emanuelegiuse...@gmail.com> --- include/hw/pci/pci.h | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/hw/pci/pci.h b/include/hw/pci/pci.h index c1bf7d5356..41c4ab5932 100644 --- a/include/hw/pci/pci.h +++ b/include/hw/pci/pci.h @@ -787,8 +787,7 @@ static inline AddressSpace *pci_get_address_space(PCIDevice *dev) static inline int pci_dma_rw(PCIDevice *dev, dma_addr_t addr, void *buf, dma_addr_t len, DMADirection dir) { - dma_memory_rw(pci_get_address_space(dev), addr, buf, len, dir); - return 0; + return dma_memory_rw(pci_get_address_space(dev), addr, buf, len, dir); }I think it's a left over from when we used "void cpu_physical_memory_rw()". I agree that it is better to return the dma_memory_rw() return value, but at first look, no one seems to check the return value of pci_dma_rw(), pci_dma_read(), andpci_dma_write(). Should we make them void?
I noticed that nobody checks the return of those functions, but I think checking for possible error is always useful. I am using the edu device and clearly doing something wrong since with this fix I discovered that the pci_dma_read call returns nonzero.
Keeping the function as it is or void would make it harder to spot such errors in future.
Thank you, Emanuele
Anyway, for this patch: Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> Thanks, Stefano
