Re: [PATCH] hw/block/nvme: fix prp mapping status codes

[Klaus Jensen]

On Oct 19 09:34, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 01:30:39PM +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static uint16_t nvme_map_prp(NvmeCtrl *n, uint64_t 
> > prp1, uint64_t prp2,
> >      trace_pci_nvme_map_prp(trans_len, len, prp1, prp2, num_prps);
> >  
> >      if (unlikely(!prp1)) {
> > -        trace_pci_nvme_err_invalid_prp();
> > +        trace_pci_nvme_err_invalid_prp1_missing();
> 
> Why is address 0 considered a missing entry? Some embedded systems
> consider that a valid address.
> 
> Otherwise, the offset checks look correct. And I realize the check for 0
> predates this patch anyway, but it's not the correct thing to do: as
> long as the host requests a properly aligned address, and 0 is aligned,
> the controller should attempt to use it.
> 

Uhm. That's a good point.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature