On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 20:15:27 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 01:02:05AM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:05:25 -0500
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 05:06:35PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:54:38 +0100
> > > > Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > > @@ -82,9 +78,14 @@ void virtio_bus_device_plugged(VirtIODevice *vdev,
> > > > > Error **errp)
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + vdev_has_iommu = virtio_host_has_feature(vdev,
> > > > > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM);
> > > > > if (klass->get_dma_as != NULL && has_iommu) {
> > > > > virtio_add_feature(&vdev->host_features,
> > > > > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM);
> > > > > vdev->dma_as = klass->get_dma_as(qbus->parent);
> > > > > + if (!vdev_has_iommu && vdev->dma_as !=
> > > > > &address_space_memory) {
> > > > > + error_setg(errp,
> > > > > + "iommu_platform=true is not supported by the
> > > > > device");
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering, would it be wise to change the message? Since this is now
> > > > dependent on the VM/bus the device is plugged into the message might be
> > > > a
> > > > little misleading: i.e. the very same device could work perfectly fine
> > > > with iommu_platform=true if the "surroundings" are different.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe "the device has no IOMMU support (iommu_platform=true)" would be a
> > > > better option. On the other hand changing the message has its downsides
> > > > as well.
> > >
> > > I personally don't care much frankly.
> > >
> > > > Also I realized that keeping the return after error_setg() might have
> > > > been a good idea for the case more logic is added at the end of the
> > > > function.
> > >
> > > OK so you are sending v5 with this change then?
> >
> > As stated below, I would prefer to get this merged. If I change the
> > message, I guess I have to drop the r-b's and the I'm sure the if
> > somebody decides to add logic to the end of the function that person
> > will be careful enough.
>
> yes but you wrote about return after error_setg above.
>
I've sent a v5 with the extra return. Please pick v5 or v4 whichever you
prefer :D
Cheers,
Halil
