On 4/8/21 3:23 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:32:11 +0200
Pierre Morel wrote:
On 4/8/21 11:02 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:47:11 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
So this begs the question, do we need this fixed for old releases as well?
My answer is yes we
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:39:59 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:02:32 +0200
> Cornelia Huck wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:47:11 +0200
> > Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> > > So this begs the question, do we need this fixed for old releases as well?
> > >
> > > My answer is yes
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:32:11 +0200
Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 4/8/21 11:02 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:47:11 +0200
> > Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> >> So this begs the question, do we need this fixed for old releases as well?
> >>
> >> My answer is yes we do. Conny what do
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:02:32 +0200
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:47:11 +0200
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
> > So this begs the question, do we need this fixed for old releases as well?
> >
> > My answer is yes we do. Conny what do you think?
>
> What do you mean with "old
On 4/8/21 11:02 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:47:11 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
So this begs the question, do we need this fixed for old releases as well?
My answer is yes we do. Conny what do you think?
What do you mean with "old releases"? The dstream rework was in 2.11,
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:47:11 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> So this begs the question, do we need this fixed for old releases as well?
>
> My answer is yes we do. Conny what do you think?
What do you mean with "old releases"? The dstream rework was in 2.11,
and I doubt that anyone is using anything
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:54:26 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:41:57 +0200
> Pierre Morel wrote:
>
> > > Here, however, I'm not sure. Returning a negative error here is fine,
> > > but handle_payload_3270_write (not changed in this patch) seems to
> > > match everything to -EIO.
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:44:13 +0200
Pierre Morel wrote:
> ccw_dstream_read/write functions returned values are sometime
> not taking into account and reported back to the upper level
> of interpretation of CCW instructions.
The return values of ccw_dstream_write/read were intentionally ignored
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:41:57 +0200
Pierre Morel wrote:
> > Here, however, I'm not sure. Returning a negative error here is fine,
> > but handle_payload_3270_write (not changed in this patch) seems to
> > match everything to -EIO. Shouldn't it just be propagated, and maybe 0
> > mapped to -EIO
On 4/6/21 5:03 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:44:13 +0200
Pierre Morel wrote:
ccw_dstream_read/write functions returned values are sometime
not taking into account and reported back to the upper level
of interpretation of CCW instructions.
It follows that accessing an
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:44:13 +0200
Pierre Morel wrote:
> ccw_dstream_read/write functions returned values are sometime
> not taking into account and reported back to the upper level
> of interpretation of CCW instructions.
>
> It follows that accessing an invalid address does not trigger
> a
ccw_dstream_read/write functions returned values are sometime
not taking into account and reported back to the upper level
of interpretation of CCW instructions.
It follows that accessing an invalid address does not trigger
a subchannel status program check to the guest as it should.
Let's test
12 matches
Mail list logo
