Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 01/15] devlink: Add reload action option to devlink reload command

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@nvidia.com>
Cc: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@mellanox.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4 01/15] devlink: Add reload action option to devlink reload command
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:26:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200915132614.GN2236@nanopsycho.orion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <996866b1-5472-dd95-f415-85c34c4d01c0@nvidia.com>

Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:12:25PM CEST, moshe@nvidia.com wrote:
>
>On 9/14/2020 3:27 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:07:48AM CEST, moshe@mellanox.com wrote:

[..]	

>> > @@ -7392,6 +7485,11 @@ struct devlink *devlink_alloc(const struct devlink_ops *ops, size_t priv_size)
>> > 	if (!devlink)
>> > 		return NULL;
>> > 	devlink->ops = ops;
>> > +	if (devlink_reload_actions_verify(devlink)) {
>> Move this check to the beginning. You don't need devlink instance for
>> the check, just ops.
>
>
>Right, will fix.
>
>> also, your devlink_reload_actions_verify() function returns
>> 0/-ESOMETHING. Treat it accordingly here.
>
>
>Well, yes, but I rather return NULL here since devlink_alloc() failed. If
>devlink_reload_actions_verify() fails it has WARN_ON which will lead the
>driver developer to his bug.

So let the verify() return bool.
My point is, if a function return 0/-ESOMETHING, you should not check
the return value directly but you should use int err/ret.

>
>> 
>> > +		kfree(devlink);
>> > +		return NULL;
>> > +	}

[...]