Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v9 04/11] msix: check msix_init's return value

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	jiri@resnulli.us, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
	Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com>,
	dmitry@daynix.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v9 04/11] msix: check msix_init's return value
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 21:43:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170124214100-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <afeb5d3c-9301-0965-6032-3d44d0a656cc@redhat.com>

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:18:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/01/2017 17:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> Doesn't do it for megasas & hcd-xhci, later patches will fix them.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > I don't like this one, frankly. That's a bunch of code duplication.
> > 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?
> 
> The names we use normally would be msix_init and msix_init_nofail.
> Would still require a change through the whole tree, but it's more
> consistent at least.
> 
> Paolo

This area has seen too much noise already but OK I guess.
Also, msix_init_exclusive_bar probably should assert
internally, no need for two versions.

-- 
MST