Re: [PATCH libvirt v2 01/11] nodedev: detect AP card device
On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:09:26 +0100
Shalini Chellathurai Saroja <shalini(a)linux.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi Jonathon,
Thank you for the quick review:-)
On 11/12/20 5:27 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
>> + <define name='address'>
>> + <element name='address'>
>> + <attribute name='domain'><ref
name='hexuint'/></attribute>
>> + <attribute name='bus'><ref
name='hexuint'/></attribute>
>> + <attribute name='slot'><ref
name='hexuint'/></attribute>
>> + <attribute name='function'><ref
>> name='hexuint'/></attribute>
> It seems that you're unnecessarily changing double-quotes to
> single-quotes here, which adds spurious changes to the diff. The
> rest of the file uses double-quotes. Let's stick with that.
Sure.
>
>> </element>
>> </define>
>>
>> @@ -716,4 +726,16 @@
>> </element>
>> </define>
>>
>> + <define name="apAdapterRange">
>> + <choice>
>> + <data type="string">
>> + <param
name="pattern">(0x)?[0-9a-fA-F]{1,2}</param>
>> + </data>
>> + <data type="int">
>> + <param name="minInclusive">0</param>
>> + <param name="maxInclusive">255</param>
>> + </data>
>> + </choice>
>> + </define>
> As far as I can tell, this is identical to the definition of the
> 'uint8' type in basictypes.rng. Is there a reason for defining a
> different type?
>
Yes, In definition apAdapterRange, the prefix '0x' is optional.
Oh, I guess I missed that part. Now that I look at basictypes.rng, I
see that the '0x' is required for uint8 and uint24, but it is optional
for uint16 and uint32. Does anybody know the justification for these
differences?
That said, I don't believe that your parsing code actually supports an
optional '0x' prefix. In virNodeDevCapAPCardParseXML(), you call
virStrToLong_uip(adapter, NULL, 0, &ap_card->ap_adapter)
But I'm quite sure that passing a value of e.g. 'ff' for adapter will
result in a parsing failure. Try changing the ap-adapter value in
tests/nodedevschemadata/ap_card07.xml to some different values and see
what happens.
Jonathon