On 2015/7/27 19:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 27/07/2015 13:11, Gonglei wrote:
>> On 2015/7/27 18:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/07/2015 08:25, arei.gong...@huawei.com wrote:
>>>> +++ b/hw/scsi/vhost-scsi.c
>>>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int vhost_scsi_start(VHostSCSI *s)
>>>> * enabling/disabling irqfd.
>>>> */
>>>> for (i = 0; i < s->dev.nvqs; i++) {
>>>> - vhost_virtqueue_mask(&s->dev, vdev, i, false);
>>>> + vhost_virtqueue_mask(&s->dev, vdev, s->dev.vq_index + i, false);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> Is this fixing an actual bug, or just using the API correctly?
>>> s->dev.vq_index is always 0, right?
>>>
>> Yes. At present, we found that s->dev.vq_index is always 0.
>
> Ok, then I've applied the patch with this commit message:
>
> vhost_virtqueue_mask takes an "absolute" virtqueue index, while the
> code looks like it's passing an index that is relative to
> s->dev.vq_index. In reality, s->dev.vq_index is always zero, so
> this patch does not make any difference, but the code is clearer.
>
It's better, thanks.
Regards,
-Gonglei
