On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com> wrote: > On (Fri) 17 Jun 2011 [15:08:11], Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >> > > if (!cpkt.value) { >> > > - error_report("virtio-serial-bus: Guest failure in adding >> > > device %s\n", >> > > - vser->bus.qbus.name); >> > > - break; >> > > + error_report("virtio-serial-bus: Guest failure in adding >> > > device %s\n", vser->bus.qbus.name); >> > > + return; >> > >> > The line split should remain -- else it goes beyond 80 chars. >> >> It's already beyond 80 chars to me. > > I prefer to not break strings that get printed out -- makes it easier > for greppers to find out the source of the string.
Please read CODING_STYLE and use scripts/checkpatch.pl before submitting patches. >> > > @@ -346,8 +339,13 @@ static void handle_control_message(VirtIOSerial >> > > *vser, void *buf, size_t len) >> > > QTAILQ_FOREACH(port, &vser->ports, next) { >> > > send_control_event(port, VIRTIO_CONSOLE_PORT_ADD, 1); >> > > } >> > > - break; >> > > + return; >> > > + } >> > >> > Makes me think of one case (totally unrelated to what you found)where >> > the guest can fool us: by sending multiple VIRTIO_CONSOLE_DEVICE_READY >> > messages. >> >> It will be handled just fine, no? > > We'll send out the VIRTIO_CONSOLE_PORT_ADD events for each port > (again). That's the case now. No idea how the code might change in > the future and we could end up doing something else in addition which > might be bad. Anyway, all this is for a buggy or a bad guest. > > Amit > >