Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/pseries: Correct secvar format representation for static key management

[Srish Srinivasan <ssrish@linux.ibm.com>]

On 5/12/25 3:25 PM, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-05-07 at 00:29 +0530, Srish Srinivasan wrote:
>>> I think you should handle this as the existing code does: if it's
>>> ENOENT, return 0, and for other codes print an error and return -
>>> EIO.
>> Currently, the other layers in the boot stack assume static key mode
>> for
>> any failure in reading SB_VERSION. We added the same interpretation
>> in the kernel to keep it consistent with the other layers, and
>> represent
>> the same to the user. This is the reason for not parsing the error
>> codes
>> when trying to read SB_VERSION, and defaulting to the static key
>> management mode. However, we want the exact error code to be logged
>> for debugging purposes. And, it does make sense to have logging only
>> for
>> error codes other than -ENOENT and -EPERM, as you suggested.
>> Does this sound okay?
> Okay, maybe document explicitly in a comment that we default to static
> mode in the event of any weird errors.
Sure, will do that.
Thank You.
>