Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Set the default PMU for the guest on vCPU reset
From: Raghavendra Rao Ananta
Date: Mon Sep 18 2023 - 12:59:12 EST
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:47 AM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:41:02AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:33 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > This would eliminate the possibility of returning ENODEV to userspace
> > > where we shouldn't.
> > >
> > I understand that we'll be breaking the API contract and userspace may
> > have to adapt to this change, but is it not acceptable to document and
> > return ENODEV, since ENODEV may offer more clarity to userspace as to
> > why the ioctl failed? In general, do we never extend the APIs?
>
> Yes, we extend the existing interfaces all the time, but we almost
> always require user opt in for user-visible changes in behavior. Look at
> the way arm64_check_features() is handled -- we hide the 'detailed'
> error and return EINVAL due to UAPI.
>
Got it. Let's return EINVAL then. Thanks!
- Raghavendra
> --
> Thanks,
> Oliver