From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] hvm_complete_assist_req: Tell caller we
 failed to send
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:47:46 -0500
Message-ID: <54CBC3C2.9070107@terremark.com>
References: <1422579150-6970-1-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com>
	<1422579150-6970-6-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com>
	<54CB6A05020000780005B2D6@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <54CB6A05020000780005B2D6@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 01/30/15 05:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 30.01.15 at 01:52, <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -2599,7 +2599,7 @@ static bool_t hvm_complete_assist_req(ioreq_t *p)
>>          break;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    return 1;
>> +    return 0; /* implicitly bins the i/o operation */
>>  }
> 
> This change points out that having hvm_complete_assist_req() be a
> separate function yet having only a single caller, and it returning
> non-void with only a single possible return value isn't the best
> arrangement. I think this should be brought back into
> hvm_send_assist_req(), by inverting the if() condition there. Unless
> there are intentions for it to have another caller, but in that case
> it should still be made return void, with the caller choosing what to
> return.
> 

Sounds good to me will do.
   -Don Slutz

> Jan
>