On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 17:10 +0800, Yi Min Zhao wrote: [...]
+static int +virZPCIDeviceAddressIsValid(virZPCIDeviceAddressPtr zpci) +{ + if (zpci->uid_assigned && + (zpci->zpci_uid > VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ZPCI_MAX_UID || + zpci->zpci_uid == 0)) { + virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, + _("Invalid PCI address uid='0x%x', " + "must be > 0x0 and <= 0x%x"), + zpci->zpci_uid, + VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ZPCI_MAX_UID); + return 0; + } + + if (zpci->fid_assigned) { + /* We don't need to check fid because fid covers + * all range of uint32 type. + */ + return 1; + }
This branch is pointless, just drop it (but leave the comment). [...]
@@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ typedef virPCIDeviceAddress *virPCIDeviceAddressPtr; typedef struct _virPCIDeviceList virPCIDeviceList; typedef virPCIDeviceList *virPCIDeviceListPtr;
+# define VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ZPCI_MAX_UID UINT16_MAX +# define VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ZPCI_MAX_FID UINT32_MAX
A single space between the name and the value will do. This should be DO_TEST("disk-virtio-s390-zpci", QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_ZPCI, QEMU_CAPS_CCW, QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_S390); Same later. The rest looks good. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization