From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] kvm:arm:Fix error handling in the function vgic_v3_probe
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 21:31:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55C40A7E.6040003@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPeVGmrkBwRRY6D46MhXtWH+_ybxyJpQjyH4F7BOpKLxSQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2015-08-06 08:47 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 2015-08-06 22:16 GMT+09:00 nick <xerofoify@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> Dear Nick,
>
> Since you are not testing the patches, please always mark them with
> RFT prefix, instead of PATCH. Someone may get confused and actually
> apply untested patch.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Krzysztof,
I am not stating your wrong here but most of my patches are either trivial bug fixes that
don't need any testing or our on hardware I don't have lying around. In addition unless
my bugs are hard to trace a.k.a locking issues or hardware dependent that need proof due
to being unable to trace without the hardware I feel that your statement is a valid idea
but may not be the best here. If you would like me to still write RFT on my patches or
our concerned about me testing them I can assure you that there tested when I am able
to.
Cheers,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-07 1:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-05 16:48 [PATCH] kvm:arm:Fix error handling in the function vgic_v3_probe Nicholas Krause
2015-08-05 16:59 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-08-05 17:07 ` nick
2015-08-06 8:06 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-08-06 12:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-08-06 12:08 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-08-06 13:16 ` nick
2015-08-07 0:47 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-08-07 1:31 ` nick [this message]
2015-08-07 1:36 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-08-07 1:40 ` nick
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55C40A7E.6040003@gmail.com \
--to=xerofoify@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).