On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:13:17 +0200
Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 29/07/2020 10.54, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:37:31 +0200
> > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Move the code to a separate function to be able to re-use it from a
> >> different spot later.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> >> index 9b64eb0c24..9477313188 100644
> >> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> >> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c
> >> @@ -51,6 +51,60 @@ unsigned int get_loadparm_index(void)
> >> return atoui(loadparm_str);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int check_sch_no(int dev_no, int sch_no)
> >
> > check_subchannel()? You verify dev_no as well, if supplied.
>
> Ok.
>
> >> +{
> >> + bool is_virtio;
> >> + Schib schib;
> >> + int r;
> >> +
> >> + blk_schid.sch_no = sch_no;
> >> + r = stsch_err(blk_schid, &schib);
> >> + if (r == 3 || r == -EIO) {
> >> + return -EIO;
> >
> > -ENODEV? It means that you either have no devices, or an invalid
> > subchannel set.
>
> We don't have ENODEV in the s390-ccw bios... but I could introduce it, I
> guess :-)
I always forget that we have only a subset of error codes here :)
ENODEV looks like a reasonable value to have, though.
