Any good reason why this still exist?
I can understand u* and __u* to be linux kernel like, but ulong?
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20230629104821.194859-2-thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
The next patch is going to add more virtio-block specific code to
virtio_blk_setup_device(), and if the virtio-scsi code is also in
there, this is more cumbersome. And the calling function virtio_setup()
in main.c looks at the device type already anyway, so it's more
logical to separate the virtio-scsi stuff into a new function in
virtio-scsi.c instead.
Message-Id: <20220704111903.62400-10-thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
In case the user did not specify a boot device, we want to continue
looking for other devices if there are no valid SCSI disks on a virtio-
scsi controller. As a first step, do not panic in this case and let
the control flow carry the error to the upper functions instead.
Message-Id: <20200806105349.632-6-thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Now that we've read all the possible limits that have been defined for
a virtio-scsi controller and the disk we're booting from, it's possible
that we are STILL going to exceed the limits of the host device.
For example, a "-device scsi-generic" device does not support the
Block Limits VPD page.
So, let's fallback to something that seems to work for most boot
configurations if larger values were specified (including if nothing
was explicitly specified, and we took default values).
Signed-off-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <20170510155359.32727-8-farman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
