Re: [PATCH 4/5] iommu: Regulate errno in ->attach_dev callback functions
From: Nicolin Chen
Date: Wed Sep 14 2022 - 13:59:03 EST
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:49:42AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 06:11:06AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 01:27:03PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > > I think in the future it will be too easy to forget about the constrained
> > > return value of attach() while modifying some other part of the driver,
> > > and let an external helper return EINVAL. So I'd rather not propagate ret
> > > from outside of viommu_domain_attach() and finalise().
> > Fortunately, if -EINVAL is wrongly returned it only creates an
> > inefficiency, not a functional problem. So we do not need to be
> > precise here.
> Ah fair. In that case the attach_dev() documentation should indicate that
> EINVAL is a hint, so that callers don't rely on it (currently words "must"
> and "exclusively" indicate that returning EINVAL for anything other than
> device-domain incompatibility is unacceptable). The virtio-iommu
> implementation may well return EINVAL from the virtio stack or from the
> host response.
How about this?
+ * * EINVAL - mainly, device and domain are incompatible, or something went
+ * wrong with the domain. It's suggested to avoid kernel prints
+ * along with this errno. And it's better to convert any EINVAL
+ * returned from kAPIs to ENODEV if it is device-specific, or to
+ * some other reasonable errno being listed below
> > > Since we can't guarantee that APIs like virtio or ida won't ever return
> > > EINVAL, we should set all return values:
> > I dislike this alot, it squashes all return codes to try to optimize
> > an obscure failure path :(
Hmm...should I revert all the driver changes back to this version?