* Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
2024-05-10 12:50 [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats() Dan Carpenter
@ 2024-05-11 17:53 ` Simon Horman
2024-05-12 16:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-05-13 2:18 ` Xuan Zhuo
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2024-05-11 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Xuan Zhuo, Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller,
Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, virtualization, netdev,
linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or
> false on failure. The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether
> it succeeds or not. It's up to the caller to translate the true/false
> into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success.
>
> The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both
> errors and success. It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller
> virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error
> codes.
>
> Fix the bug and clean things up so that it's clear that
> __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns zero on success or negative error codes
> on failure.
>
> Fixes: 941168f8b40e ("virtio_net: support device stats")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Hi Dan, all,
Strictly this is doing two things. But I agree that the "ok" variable in
virtnet_get_hw_stats() was very confusing, and I'm not sure how long it
would have taken me to grasp the fix without that change being here too.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
2024-05-10 12:50 [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats() Dan Carpenter
2024-05-11 17:53 ` Simon Horman
@ 2024-05-12 16:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-05-15 14:50 ` Dan Carpenter
2024-05-13 2:18 ` Xuan Zhuo
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2024-05-12 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Xuan Zhuo, Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet,
Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
kernel-janitors
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or
> false on failure. The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether
> it succeeds or not. It's up to the caller to translate the true/false
> into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success.
>
> The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both
> errors and success. It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller
> virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error
> codes.
The bug is ... It's not a bug ....
I think what you are trying to say is that the error isn't
really handled anyway, except for printing a warning,
so it's not a big deal.
Right?
I don't know why can't get_ethtool_stats fail - we should
probably fix that.
> Fix the bug and clean things up so that it's clear that
> __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns zero on success or negative error codes
> on failure.
>
> Fixes: 941168f8b40e ("virtio_net: support device stats")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index 218a446c4c27..4fc0fcdad259 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -4016,7 +4016,7 @@ static int __virtnet_get_hw_stats(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> &sgs_out, &sgs_in);
>
> if (!ok)
> - return ok;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> for (p = reply; p - reply < res_size; p += le16_to_cpu(hdr->size)) {
> hdr = p;
> @@ -4053,7 +4053,7 @@ static int virtnet_get_hw_stats(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> struct virtio_net_ctrl_queue_stats *req;
> bool enable_cvq;
> void *reply;
> - int ok;
> + int err;
>
> if (!virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_DEVICE_STATS))
> return 0;
> @@ -4100,12 +4100,12 @@ static int virtnet_get_hw_stats(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> if (enable_cvq)
> virtnet_make_stat_req(vi, ctx, req, vi->max_queue_pairs * 2, &j);
>
> - ok = __virtnet_get_hw_stats(vi, ctx, req, sizeof(*req) * j, reply, res_size);
> + err = __virtnet_get_hw_stats(vi, ctx, req, sizeof(*req) * j, reply, res_size);
>
> kfree(req);
> kfree(reply);
>
> - return ok;
> + return err;
> }
>
> static void virtnet_get_strings(struct net_device *dev, u32 stringset, u8 *data)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
2024-05-12 16:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2024-05-15 14:50 ` Dan Carpenter
2024-05-15 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2024-05-15 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin
Cc: Xuan Zhuo, Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet,
Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
kernel-janitors
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 12:01:55PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or
> > false on failure. The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether
> > it succeeds or not. It's up to the caller to translate the true/false
> > into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success.
> >
> > The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both
> > errors and success. It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller
> > virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error
> > codes.
>
> The bug is ... It's not a bug ....
>
> I think what you are trying to say is that the error isn't
> really handled anyway, except for printing a warning,
> so it's not a big deal.
>
> Right?
>
No, I'm sorry, that was confusing. The change to __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
is a bugfix but the change to virtnet_get_hw_stats() was not a bugfix.
I viewed this all as really one thing, because it's cleaning up the
error codes which happens to fix a bug. It seems very related. At the
same time, I can also see how people would disagree.
I'm traveling until May 23. I can resend this. Probably as two patches
for simpler review.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
2024-05-15 14:50 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2024-05-15 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2024-05-15 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Xuan Zhuo, Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet,
Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
kernel-janitors
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 04:50:48PM +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 12:01:55PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or
> > > false on failure. The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether
> > > it succeeds or not. It's up to the caller to translate the true/false
> > > into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success.
> > >
> > > The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both
> > > errors and success. It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller
> > > virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error
> > > codes.
> >
> > The bug is ... It's not a bug ....
> >
> > I think what you are trying to say is that the error isn't
> > really handled anyway, except for printing a warning,
> > so it's not a big deal.
> >
> > Right?
> >
>
> No, I'm sorry, that was confusing. The change to __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
> is a bugfix but the change to virtnet_get_hw_stats() was not a bugfix.
> I viewed this all as really one thing, because it's cleaning up the
> error codes which happens to fix a bug. It seems very related. At the
> same time, I can also see how people would disagree.
>
> I'm traveling until May 23. I can resend this. Probably as two patches
> for simpler review.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Yea, no rush - bugfixes are fine after 23. And it's ok to combine into
one - we don't want inconsistent code - just please write a clear
commit log message.
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
2024-05-10 12:50 [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw_stats() Dan Carpenter
2024-05-11 17:53 ` Simon Horman
2024-05-12 16:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2024-05-13 2:18 ` Xuan Zhuo
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Xuan Zhuo @ 2024-05-13 2:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Jason Wang, David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet,
Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, virtualization, netdev, linux-kernel,
kernel-janitors
On Fri, 10 May 2024 15:50:45 +0300, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:
> The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or
> false on failure. The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether
> it succeeds or not. It's up to the caller to translate the true/false
> into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success.
>
> The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both
> errors and success. It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller
> virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error
> codes.
>
> Fix the bug and clean things up so that it's clear that
> __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns zero on success or negative error codes
> on failure.
>
> Fixes: 941168f8b40e ("virtio_net: support device stats")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
That confused me too.
Reviewed-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>
Thanks.
> ---
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index 218a446c4c27..4fc0fcdad259 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -4016,7 +4016,7 @@ static int __virtnet_get_hw_stats(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> &sgs_out, &sgs_in);
>
> if (!ok)
> - return ok;
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> for (p = reply; p - reply < res_size; p += le16_to_cpu(hdr->size)) {
> hdr = p;
> @@ -4053,7 +4053,7 @@ static int virtnet_get_hw_stats(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> struct virtio_net_ctrl_queue_stats *req;
> bool enable_cvq;
> void *reply;
> - int ok;
> + int err;
>
> if (!virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_DEVICE_STATS))
> return 0;
> @@ -4100,12 +4100,12 @@ static int virtnet_get_hw_stats(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> if (enable_cvq)
> virtnet_make_stat_req(vi, ctx, req, vi->max_queue_pairs * 2, &j);
>
> - ok = __virtnet_get_hw_stats(vi, ctx, req, sizeof(*req) * j, reply, res_size);
> + err = __virtnet_get_hw_stats(vi, ctx, req, sizeof(*req) * j, reply, res_size);
>
> kfree(req);
> kfree(reply);
>
> - return ok;
> + return err;
> }
>
> static void virtnet_get_strings(struct net_device *dev, u32 stringset, u8 *data)
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread