[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] SEV firmware error list touchups

From: Connor Kuehl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] SEV firmware error list touchups
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:46:48 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0

On 2/18/21 9:48 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 2/18/21 4:16 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
Connor Kuehl (2):
   sev: use explicit indices for mapping firmware error codes to strings
   sev: add missing firmware error conditions

  target/i386/sev.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

Thank you! :-)

To avoid this problem in future (new error code added on the Linux
kernel side) would it be acceptable to add a 3rd patch as:

-- >8 --
diff --git a/target/i386/sev.c b/target/i386/sev.c
index 0f414df02f3..e086d3198e8 100644
--- a/target/i386/sev.c
+++ b/target/i386/sev.c
@@ -155,9 +155,12 @@ sev_platform_ioctl(int fd, int cmd, void *data, int
  static const char *
  fw_error_to_str(int code)
      if (code < 0 || code >= SEV_FW_MAX_ERROR) {
          return "unknown error";
+    assert(sev_fw_errlist[code]);

      return sev_fw_errlist[code];

which triggers a build error if scripts/update-linux-headers.sh
added another sev_ret_code entry?

I like this a lot. Should I send a v2 of the series with a third patch like this or shall I wait to see if these patches get applied then send something like this as a follow up patch?

Thank you,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]