Re: [v5 2/2] virtio-gpu: use consistent error checking for virtio_gpu_create_mapping_iov

[Honglei Huang <honghuan@amd.com>]

On 2025/11/25 05:31, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 11/24/25 06:24, Honglei Huang wrote:
>> diff --git a/hw/display/virtio-gpu-rutabaga.c b/hw/display/virtio-gpu-rutabaga.c
>> index ed5ae52acb..ea2928b706 100644
>> --- a/hw/display/virtio-gpu-rutabaga.c
>> +++ b/hw/display/virtio-gpu-rutabaga.c
>> @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ rutabaga_cmd_attach_backing(VirtIOGPU *g, struct virtio_gpu_ctrl_command *cmd)
>>   
>>       ret = virtio_gpu_create_mapping_iov(g, att_rb.nr_entries, sizeof(att_rb),
>>                                           cmd, NULL, &res->iov, &res->iov_cnt);
>> -    CHECK(!ret, cmd);
>> +    CHECK(ret >= 0, cmd);
>>   
>>       vecs.iovecs = res->iov;
>>       vecs.num_iovecs = res->iov_cnt;
>> @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ rutabaga_cmd_resource_create_blob(VirtIOGPU *g,
>>           result = virtio_gpu_create_mapping_iov(g, cblob.nr_entries,
>>                                                  sizeof(cblob), cmd, &res->addrs,
>>                                                  &res->iov, &res->iov_cnt);
>> -        CHECK(!result, cmd);
>> +        CHECK(result >= 0, cmd);
>>       }
> 
> The ret < 0 part looks okay, but ret >= 0 feels dubious to me given that
> this func doesn't return positive values.
> 

Really thanks for the review.

How about split patch 1 and patch 2 into different threads, for the 
error checking style I will submit a another thread, maybe change the 
virtio_gpu_create_mapping_iov return value to true or false is a better 
choice?