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 <caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> >>> 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
