On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:20:42 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 07/04/2017 04:51 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > > > > On 07/04/2017 04:37 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:07:56 +0200 > >> Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>> > >>> Commit f6f4ce4211 ("s390x: add property adapter_routes_max_batch", > >>> 2016-12-09) introduces a common realize (intended to be common for all > >>> the subclasses) for flic, but fails to make sure the kvm-flic which had > >>> it's own is actually calling this common realize. > >> > >> s/it's/its/ > >> > > > > Valid. Sorry. > > > >>> > >>> This omission fortunately does not result in a grave problem. The common > >>> realize was only supposed to catch a possible programming mistake by > >>> validating a value of a property set via the compat machine macros. Since > >>> there was no programming mistake we don't need this fixed for stable. > >>> > >>> Let's fix this problem by making sure kvm flic honors the realize of its > >>> parent class. > >>> > >>> Let us also improve on the error message we would hypothetically emit > >>> when the validation fails. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>> Fixes: f6f4ce4211 ("s390x: add property adapter_routes_max_batch") > >>> Reviewed-by: Dong Jia Shi <bjsdj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>> Reviewed-by: Yi Min Zhao <zyi...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > >>> --- > >>> hw/intc/s390_flic.c | 4 ++-- > >>> hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/hw/intc/s390_flic.c b/hw/intc/s390_flic.c > >>> index a99a350..837158b 100644 > >>> --- a/hw/intc/s390_flic.c > >>> +++ b/hw/intc/s390_flic.c > >>> @@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ static void s390_flic_common_realize(DeviceState > >>> *dev, Error **errp) > >>> uint32_t max_batch = S390_FLIC_COMMON(dev)->adapter_routes_max_batch; > >>> > >>> if (max_batch > ADAPTER_ROUTES_MAX_GSI) { > >>> - error_setg(errp, "flic adapter_routes_max_batch too big" > >>> - "%d (%d allowed)", max_batch, ADAPTER_ROUTES_MAX_GSI); > >>> + error_setg(errp, "flic property adapter_routes_max_batch too big" > >>> + " (%d > %d)", max_batch, ADAPTER_ROUTES_MAX_GSI); > >> > >> Unrelated message change? > >> > > > > I've mentioned it in the commit message. It was also introduced by the > > patch I'm fixing. But yes strictly it's two different problems. > > I will only fix the patch description ( s/it's/its/) and keep the other things > unchanged. Is that fine with you? Yup. Let's get this done. With the changes, Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>