Re: [PATCH v3 03/15] iommu: Always register bus notifiers

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>]

On 2022-07-07 07:34, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 8:21 AM
>>
>> On 2022/7/6 21:43, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 2022-07-06 02:53, Baolu Lu wrote:
>>>> On 2022/7/6 01:08, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>>    /*
>>>>>     * Use a function instead of an array here because the domain-type
>>>>> is a
>>>>>     * bit-field, so an array would waste memory.
>>>>> @@ -152,6 +172,10 @@ static int __init iommu_subsys_init(void)
>>>>>                (iommu_cmd_line & IOMMU_CMD_LINE_STRICT) ?
>>>>>                    "(set via kernel command line)" : "");
>>>>> +    /* If the system is so broken that this fails, it will WARN
>>>>> anyway */
>>>>
>>>> Can you please elaborate a bit on this? iommu_bus_init() still return
>>>> errors.
>>>
>>> Indeed, it's commenting on the fact that we don't try to clean up or
>>> propagate an error value further even if it did ever manage to return
>>> one. I feared that if I strip the error handling out of iommu_bus_init()
>>> itself on the same reasoning, we'll just get constant patches from the
>>> static checker brigade trying to add it back, so it seemed like the
>>> neatest compromise to keep that decision where it's obviously in an
>>> early initcall, rather than in the helper function which can be viewed
>>> out of context. However, I'm happy to either expand this comment or go
>>> the whole way and make iommu_bus_init() return void if you think it's
>>> worthwhile.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation. It would be helpful if the comment could be
>> expanded. In this case, after a long time, people will not consider it
>> an oversight. :-)
>>
> 
> I'd prefer to making iommu_bus_init() return void plus expanding
> the comment otherwise the question arises that if the only caller
> is not interested in the return value then why bother returning it
> in the first place. 😊

OK, that's fair enough, will do.

Thanks,
Robin.