On 8/26/26 3:30 PM, Jared Rossi wrote:
>
>
> On 8/26/26 1:33 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>>> +bool virtio_net_setup(void)
>>> +{
>>> + switch (virtio_get_device()->ipl_type) {
>>> + case S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW:
>>> + return virtio_ccw_net_setup();
>>> + default:
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> +}
>> This patch is largely renaming, but this does seem to have a subtle
>> functional change right here.
>>
>> AFAICT before this patch attempting to netboot with anything other than
>> a ccw device would hit
>> IPL_assert(iplb.pbt == S390_IPL_TYPE_CCW, "IPL_TYPE_CCW expected");
>>
>> Now, we will never call virtio_ccw_net_setup(), return false and instead
>> bail out with
>> "No virtio net device found."
>>
>> That is new behavior for !IPL_TYPE_CCW after this patch. For
>> IPL_TYPE_PCI, patch 4 will change the behavior again.
>>
>> That's not a deal-breaker, but I do think it's worth a mention in the
>> commit message. I then also wonder if the message
>> "No virtio net device found"
>> would be more accurate if it instead read something like:
>> "No supported virtio net device found"
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>
> I’m not sure this is a valid concern. A non-ccw net device would be
> rejected before getting to virtio_net_setup() earlier at the
> find_boot_device() step either way. In the case of virtio-net-pci
> specifically, it would fail because VIRTIO_ID_NET is not a supported PCI
> type yet. For some sort of non-ccw non-pci netboot device, I believe there
> wouldn't ever be an IPLB built for it, so it wouldn’t be recognized as
> boot eligible at all. I don’t think this patch affects any of that.
>
Based on that description it sounds like we don't even ever to expect to
reach the new default: case then, as prior checks should have already
weeded out all but the supported IPL_TYPE_* values.
Should the default: case have an IPL_assert with its own message then?
Thanks,
Matt
