Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cxl/mbox: Use mapped errno to determine command status

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2026, Alison Schofield wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 10:43:05AM +0800, Li Ming wrote:
> > cxl_mbox_cmd_rctable already maps all mailbox command return codes to
> > errno values. Use the returned errno directly instead of checking
> > mailbox return codes separately to determine whether a command succeeded
> > or failed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Ming <ming.li@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - New patch.
> > ---
> >  drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > index 55828a836c01..bd91b03c4d21 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > @@ -270,9 +270,9 @@ int cxl_internal_send_cmd(struct cxl_mailbox *cxl_mbox,
> >  	if (rc)
> >  		return rc;
> >
> > -	if (mbox_cmd->return_code != CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SUCCESS &&
> > -	    mbox_cmd->return_code != CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_BACKGROUND)
> > -		return cxl_mbox_cmd_rc2errno(mbox_cmd);
> > +	rc = cxl_mbox_cmd_rc2errno(mbox_cmd);
> > +	if (rc)
> > +		return rc;
>
> Hi Ming,
>
> The existing code really seemed to want BACKGROUND as a special case, so
> I searched the history on this one,  Davidlohr and you discussed this in
> 2023 around sanitize[1] .
>
> I do think it is confusing and if we can just follow the table codes,
> that would be easier.
>
> I'll let Davidlohr dig in on this one.
>
> I read both these patches as cleanups but no bug to be fixed.

Exactly, the Fixes tag in patch 1 should be dropped, but otherwise
for the series:

Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

(this patch reminds me that I want to create a cxl-bg-tests + the
abortable bg semantics)