On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:27 PM Laurent Dufour
<lduf...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Le 24/07/2019 à 11:24, Oliver O'Halloran a écrit :
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:17 PM Laurent Dufour
> > <lduf...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 23/07/2019 à 18:13, Vaibhav Jain a écrit :
> >>> *snip*
> >>> @@ -404,6 +409,14 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device
> >>> *pdev)
> >>>
> >>> /* request the hypervisor to bind this region to somewhere in
> >>> memory */
> >>> rc = drc_pmem_bind(p);
> >>> +
> >>> + /* If phyp says drc memory still bound then force unbound and retry
> >>> */
> >>> + if (rc == -EBUSY) {
> >>> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Retrying bind after unbinding\n");
> >>> + drc_pmem_unbind(p);
> >>> + rc = drc_pmem_bind(p);
> >>
> >> In the unlikely case where H_SCM_BIND_MEM is returning H_OVERLAP once the
> >> unbinding has been done, the error would be silently processed. That sounds
> >> really unlikely, but should an error message be displayed in this
> >> particular case ?
> >
> > drc_pmem_bind() prints the h-call error code if we get one, so it's not
> > silent
>
> That's no more the case whith this patch, H_OVERLAP is handled before
> writing the error message, which would make sense for the first try.
>
> For the record, the patch introduces:
>
> @@ -65,6 +66,10 @@ static int drc_pmem_bind(struct papr_scm_priv *p)
> } while (rc == H_BUSY);
>
> if (rc) {
> + /* H_OVERLAP needs a separate error path */
> + if (rc == H_OVERLAP)
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> dev_err(&p->pdev->dev, "bind err: %lld\n", rc);
> return -ENXIO;
> }
Ah, good point. Getting H_OVERLAP is still an error case so I think
it's reasonable to still print the message in that case.
