Re: [PATCH v9 10/27] gunyah: rsc_mgr: Add VM lifecycle RPC

[Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>]

On 2/2/23 6:46 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>> +    ret = gh_rm_call(rm, message_id, &req_payload, 
>> sizeof(req_payload), &resp, &resp_size);
>> +    if (!ret && resp_size) {
> 
> Am struggling to understand these type of checks in success case, when a 
> command is not expecting any response why are we checking for response 
> here, This sounds like a bug in either RM or hypervisor.
> 
> Or Is this something that happens due to some firmware behaviour?
> Could you elobrate on this.

What I think you're talking about is error checking even when
it's very clear something "can't happen."  It's a pattern I've
seen in Qualcomm downstream code, and I believe sometimes it
is done as "best practice" to avoid warnings from security scans.
(I might be wrong about this though.)

I think your underlying point though is that we can just assume
success means "truly successful," so there's no reason to do any
additional sanity checks.  We *assume* the hardware is doing the
correct thing (if it's not, we might as well assume it does
*nothing* right).

So as a very general statement, I think all checks of this type
should go away (and I think Srini would agree).

					-Alex