We are going to introduce more MemTxResult bits, so it is
safer to check for !MEMTX_OK rather than MEMTX_ERROR.

Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
---
 hw/intc/arm_gicv3_dist.c   | 4 ++--
 hw/intc/arm_gicv3_redist.c | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_dist.c b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_dist.c
index b65f56f9035..e62a9cdfa8d 100644
--- a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_dist.c
+++ b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_dist.c
@@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ MemTxResult gicv3_dist_read(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t *data,
         break;
     }
 
-    if (r == MEMTX_ERROR) {
+    if (r != MEMTX_OK) {
         qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
                       "%s: invalid guest read at offset " TARGET_FMT_plx
                       "size %u\n", __func__, offset, size);
@@ -861,7 +861,7 @@ MemTxResult gicv3_dist_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t data,
         break;
     }
 
-    if (r == MEMTX_ERROR) {
+    if (r != MEMTX_OK) {
         qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
                       "%s: invalid guest write at offset " TARGET_FMT_plx
                       "size %u\n", __func__, offset, size);
diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_redist.c b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_redist.c
index 53da703ed84..547281a8961 100644
--- a/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_redist.c
+++ b/hw/intc/arm_gicv3_redist.c
@@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ MemTxResult gicv3_redist_read(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t *data,
         break;
     }
 
-    if (r == MEMTX_ERROR) {
+    if (r != MEMTX_OK) {
         qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
                       "%s: invalid guest read at offset " TARGET_FMT_plx
                       " size %u\n", __func__, offset, size);
@@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ MemTxResult gicv3_redist_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t data,
         break;
     }
 
-    if (r == MEMTX_ERROR) {
+    if (r != MEMTX_OK) {
         qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
                       "%s: invalid guest write at offset " TARGET_FMT_plx
                       " size %u\n", __func__, offset, size);
-- 
2.31.1

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 06:41:54PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> We are going to introduce more MemTxResult bits, so it is
> safer to check for !MEMTX_OK rather than MEMTX_ERROR.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>

-- 
Peter Xu

On 23.08.21 18:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> We are going to introduce more MemTxResult bits, so it is
> safer to check for !MEMTX_OK rather than MEMTX_ERROR.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> ---

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 17:42, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> We are going to introduce more MemTxResult bits, so it is
> safer to check for !MEMTX_OK rather than MEMTX_ERROR.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

but note that these MEMTX_* aren't from the memory transaction
API functions; they're just being used by gicd_readl() and
friends as a way to indicate a success/failure so that the
actual MemoryRegionOps read/write fns like gicv3_dist_read()
can log a guest error. Arguably this is a bit of a misuse of
the MEMTX_* constants and perhaps we should have gicd_readl etc
return a bool instead.

thanks
-- PMM