On 4/3/2017 10:36 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
So this produces the same -EINVAL as the earlier check in context
above. I think it would be nice if neither did - -EINUSE for the first
(which we don't have, so -EOPNOTSUPP would seem the second
bets option there) and -EBUSY for the second would seem more
appropriate. If you agree, respective adjustments could be done
while committing, if no other reason for a v11 arises.
Thanks Jan.
But my code shows both will return -EBUSY, instead of -EINVAL for the
mapping requirement:
/* Unmap ioreq server from p2m type by passing flags with 0. */
if ( flags == 0 )
{
/rc = -EINVAL;/
if ( p2m->ioreq.server != s )
goto out;
p2m->ioreq.server = NULL;
p2m->ioreq.flags = 0;
}
else
{
/rc = -EBUSY;/
if ( p2m->ioreq.server != NULL )
goto out;
/*
* It is possible that an ioreq server has just been unmapped,
* released the spin lock, with some p2m_ioreq_server entries
* in p2m table remained. We shall refuse another ioreq server
* mapping request in such case.
*/
if ( read_atomic(&p2m->ioreq.entry_count) )
goto out;
p2m->ioreq.server = s;
p2m->ioreq.flags = flags;
}
Are you really wanna use -EOPNOTSUPP when p2m->ioreq.server is not NULL
for the mapping code?
For the unmapping code, -EINVAL is used when the ioreq server to be
unmapped is not the designated one.
But for this one, I am not sure which one is better: -EINVAL or -EBUSY?
Yu
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
