On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:30:07AM +0100, Klaus Birkelund wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 01:13:36AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 10/11/19 9:01 AM, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > > Some might actually care about the return value of dma_memory_rw. So
> > > let us pass it along instead of ignoring it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Klaus Jensen <k.jen...@samsung.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/hw/pci/pci.h | 3 +--
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/hw/pci/pci.h b/include/hw/pci/pci.h
> > > index f3f0ffd5fb78..4e95bb847857 100644
> > > --- a/include/hw/pci/pci.h
> > > +++ b/include/hw/pci/pci.h
> > > @@ -779,8 +779,7 @@ static inline AddressSpace
> > > *pci_get_address_space(PCIDevice *dev)
> > > static inline int pci_dma_rw(PCIDevice *dev, dma_addr_t addr,
> > > void *buf, dma_addr_t len, DMADirection
> > > dir)
> > > {
> > > - dma_memory_rw(pci_get_address_space(dev), addr, buf, len, dir);
> > > - return 0;
> > > + return dma_memory_rw(pci_get_address_space(dev), addr, buf, len,
> > > dir);
> > > }
> > > static inline int pci_dma_read(PCIDevice *dev, dma_addr_t addr,
> > >
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
>
> Gentle ping on this.
>
> This fix is required for the nvme device to start passing some of the
> nasty tests from blktests that flips bus mastering while doing I/O.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Klaus
So I looked and it does not seem like anyone at all checks the
return value. While this makes the patch safe, how come it
helps anyone at all?
Maybe this is just infrastructure to allow checks in the
future, in this case do we need this for the freeze?
Or can it wait until after the release?
--
MST
