Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390/vfio-ap: Fix leak of pinned NIB and registered NISC in vfio_ap_irq_enable()

[Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>]

On 8/24/26 3:56 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>>>> -        pr_warn("%s: apqn %04x: response: %02x\n", __func__, q->apqn,
>>>> -            status.response_code);
>>>> -        vfio_ap_irq_disable(q);
>>>> +        pr_warn("%s: PQAP(AQIC) failed with response code %02x for
>>>> apqn %04x\n",
>>>> +            __func__, status.response_code, q->apqn);
>>> LGTM, except Sashiko mentions the pr_warn here that you are updating has
>>> a pre-existing issue.
>>>
>>> Since you're touching it already, do you think it makes sense to switch
>>> to pr_warn_ratelimited with this patch?
>> Since this is a pre-existing problem not introduced with this patch and
>> there is
>> likewise another related problem not introduced by this patch, I am
>> going to
>> post a separated series with fixes to those two related issues.
>>
> Isn't the change in pr_warn wording here also unnecessary/cosmetic?
>
> Why don't you remove the change to pr_warn from this patch and re-word
> it at the same time you convert it to VFIO_AP_DBF_WARN -- that way you
> avoid touching/extending the pre-existing issue with this patch.

Actually, now that I've looked at the entirety of the code, there is no
need to add a VFIO_AP_DBF_WARN here. After the switch statement
we have the following which duplicates the pr_warn but with more
detail:

if(status.response_code!= AP_RESPONSE_NORMAL) { VFIO_AP_DBF_WARN("%s: 
PQAP(AQIC) failed with status=%#02x: " "zone=%#x, ir=%#x, gisc=%#x, 
f=%#x," "gisa=%#x, isc=%#x, apqn=%#04x\n", __func__, 
status.response_code, aqic_gisa.zone, aqic_gisa.ir, aqic_gisa.gisc, 
aqic_gisa.gf, aqic_gisa.gisa, aqic_gisa.isc, q->apqn);

}