From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51263) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cTjet-0000g0-SM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:23:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cTjep-0001tQ-AM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:23:47 -0500 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=17167 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cTjeo-0001in-Sz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:23:43 -0500 References: <1484633936-25344-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1484633936-25344-5-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <587DBEBE.4070409@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170117175708-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Cao jin Message-ID: <587F0B3F.1040300@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:29:19 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170117175708-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v9 04/11] msix: check msix_init's return value List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dmitry@daynix.com, Jason Wang , jiri@resnulli.us, Markus Armbruster , Marcel Apfelbaum On 01/18/2017 12:01 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:50:38PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: >> forget to cc maintainers in this new patch >> >> On 01/17/2017 02:18 PM, Cao jin wrote: >>> Doesn't do it for megasas & hcd-xhci, later patches will fix them. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Cao jin > > I don't like this one, frankly. That's a bunch of code duplication. Yes, code duplication, seems inevitable if move the asserts into a separate patch. > I suspect vfio is the only one who might reasonably get EINVAL here. > So how about e.g. msix_validate_and_init that doesn't assert and use that > from vfio, then switch msix_init to assert instead? > Not sure if I get your idea. Do you mean: do param check via assert in msix_init(), so that no need check its returned error outside, and introduce new api msix_validate_and_init(same content as msix_init, except param check) dedicated to vfio? If I understand you right, the way we do param check for msi_init[*] & msix_init will be inconsistent. [*] patch: msi_init: convert assert to return -errno -- Sincerely, Cao jin