From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cUBgb-00046X-OK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:19:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cUBgY-0005jv-Ke for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:19:25 -0500 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=58205 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cUBgY-0005he-4t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 07:19:22 -0500 References: <1484633936-25344-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1484633936-25344-5-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <587DBEBE.4070409@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170117175708-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <587F0B3F.1040300@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170118171932-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Cao jin Message-ID: <5880B026.8060605@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:25:10 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170118171932-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v9 04/11] msix: check msix_init's return value List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Marcel Apfelbaum On 01/18/2017 11:21 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:29:19PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: >> >> >> On 01/18/2017 12:01 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:50:38PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: >>>> forget to cc maintainers in this new patch >>>> >>>> On 01/17/2017 02:18 PM, Cao jin wrote: >>>>> Doesn't do it for megasas & hcd-xhci, later patches will fix them. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Cao jin >>> >>> I don't like this one, frankly. That's a bunch of code duplication. >> >> Yes, code duplication, seems inevitable if move the asserts into a >> separate patch. >> >>> I suspect vfio is the only one who might reasonably get EINVAL here. >>> So how about e.g. msix_validate_and_init that doesn't assert and use that >>> from vfio, then switch msix_init to assert instead? >>> >> >> Not sure if I get your idea. Do you mean: do param check via assert in >> msix_init(), so that no need check its returned error outside, and >> introduce new api msix_validate_and_init(same content as msix_init, >> except param check) dedicated to vfio? > > Something like this. > >> If I understand you right, the way we do param check for msi_init[*] & >> msix_init will be inconsistent. > > Right, we should consolidate these for msi too. > > I got confused: for msi_init, convert assert to return -errno is a choice from a long discussion: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-09/msg08215.html then now we will revert again? And IIRC, I did use assert in msix_init to do sanity test, and revert as suggest. And this is the way we have done for msi_init: assert the return error outside. And if it need to be modified as your suggestion, I see lots of place need to be taken care, does that worth the trouble? I see there is a simpler way helping us: drop this one from the patchset, at least there is no regression, just a few devices doesn't assert the return error while other(megasas, hcd-xhci) does. What would you say? -- Sincerely, Cao jin