Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390x/s390-virtio-ccw: Fix build on systems without KVM

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:29:21 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 06.04.20 11:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >   
> >>  static inline bool s390_is_pv(void)
> >> @@ -41,6 +42,7 @@ int s390_pv_unpack(uint64_t addr, uint64_t size, 
> >> uint64_t tweak);
> >>  void s390_pv_perf_clear_reset(void);
> >>  int s390_pv_verify(void);
> >>  void s390_pv_unshare(void);
> >> +void s390_machine_inject_pv_error(CPUState *cs);
> >>  #else /* CONFIG_KVM */
> >>  static inline bool s390_is_pv(void) { return false; }
> >>  static inline int s390_pv_vm_enable(void) { return 0; }
> >> @@ -50,6 +52,7 @@ static inline int s390_pv_unpack(uint64_t addr, uint64_t 
> >> size, uint64_t tweak) {
> >>  static inline void s390_pv_perf_clear_reset(void) {}
> >>  static inline int s390_pv_verify(void) { return 0; }
> >>  static inline void s390_pv_unshare(void) {}
> >> +static inline void s390_machine_inject_pv_error(CPUState *cs) {};  
> > 
> > I'd suggest renaming that to s390_pv_inject_error() or similar right away.  
> 
> Makes sense.
> Conny any preference?
> 

I think s390_pv_inject_error() fits in a bit better.