Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/xen-scsiback: Need go to fail after xenbus_dev_error()

[Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>]

On 9/30/14 15:50, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 9/30/14 14:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 09/30/2014 08:32 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 9/29/14 21:57, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/14 10:59, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If no any additional reply within 2 days, I shall send patch v2 for it:
>>>>>
>>>>>    "use dev_warn() instead of xenbus_dev_error() and remove 'fail' code block"
>>>>
>>>> I think this driver is fine as-is and does not need any changes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, at least, at present, it is not a bug (will cause any issue).
>>>
>>> But for me, xenbus_dev_error() seems for printing generic errors,
>>> dev_warn() is more suitable than it.
>>
>> I'm unbiased regarding this one.
>>
> 
> After check all related code for xenbus_printf() and xenbus_dev_error(),
> for me: if xenbus_printf() is for optional error, it will print warning;
> all xenbus_dev_error() are not for optional error, except 2 area:
> 
>   drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c:866:		xenbus_dev_error(pdev->xdev, err,
>   drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c:947:		xenbus_dev_error(pdev->xdev, err,

And for this 2 xenbus_dev_error(), they have no much negative effect
(not check return value, and according to the code below, readers can
easily understand, they are for optional failure).

But for our case, I recommend to use dev_warn() instead of, or readers
is really easy to misunderstand (xenbus_dev_error, and 'grant'), then
may send spam again (like me).


> 
> In fact, for me, not only they need be improved, but also skip 'err' for
> pcifront_scan_root() and pcifront_rescan_root(), are they bugs? (I guess
> they are). If they are really bugs, I shall send related patch for it.
> 

If no any additional reply for them within 2 days, I shall assume they
are bugs, and send related patch for them, in next month (2014-10-??).

>>>
>>> And 'fail' code block is useless now, need be removed, too (which will
>>> let compiler report warning).
>>
>> This should be part of the patch making the 'fail' block useless.
>>

The original related patch is canceled, so we need not remove 'fail'
block (it still seems useful, although it is not).

> 
> Yeah, originally, it really should be, but if this patch can continue,
> for me, can remove it in this patch, too (for the original patch, I
> intended to remain it for discussing and analysing in this patch).
> 
> But all together, if you stick to remove 'fail' code block in original
> patch, for me, it is OK.
> 


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed