From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 09:16:45 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] kvm:arm:Fix error handling in the function vgic_v3_probe
In-Reply-To: <55C34C77.7090303@redhat.com>
References: <1438793303-30228-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com>
 <55C240D9.5060900@redhat.com> <55C242C6.6060200@gmail.com>
 <55C31582.4000809@arm.com> <55C34C77.7090303@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <55C35E3D.9000708@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 2015-08-06 08:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/08/2015 10:06, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> If this structure of function pointers can handle function pointers with a return type of 
>>> void I will be glad to do what you request otherwise this would require a major rewrite
>>> of kvm arm subsystem for a very simple bug fix.
>>
>> Just like Paolo said, the error you report should never happen, and
>> would be caught by a WARN_ON() the first time anyone boots the kernel.
>> Also, failing to register the device ops results in not being able to
>> instantiate a VGIC. No harm done. I really don't understand why you want
>> to rewrite the probe functions.
> 
> I think he just misunderstood my suggestion.  I didn't suggest making
> the probe functions return void.  I suggested that
> kvm_register_device_ops return void.
> 
> Paolo
> 
Unfortunately the other maintainer is right in the s390 kvm subsystem uses the return value of the call to 
kvm_register_device_ops. However we could do something like a WARN_ON if kvm_register_device_ops fails in 
callers that never are required to never use it's return value.
Sorry about the Misunderstanding as I misread your suggestion.
Nick