From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F77BC433DF for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 18:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B54720829 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 18:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728757AbgEUSPT (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 14:15:19 -0400 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:25637 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728067AbgEUSPS (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 14:15:18 -0400 IronPort-SDR: B1OJchEajIHsjVbNLwyPhcmgGSFWSOhF0jVj564tjY5LsaLD/zxzF7fXMEy49wyvi3cY9g7Wi9 ukO33mqKpYDg== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 May 2020 11:15:18 -0700 IronPort-SDR: 467gzIizawwuQPbVCKoikzWzLyd9P3wjCD7F/en4KMNDyW2znS/vZ+lHLLfj0q2V67sqK7L5/W LFxGcqGl7Kbg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,418,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="255377912" Received: from rchatre-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.255.230.233]) ([10.255.230.233]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 May 2020 11:15:16 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 15/19] selftests/resctrl: Change return type of umount_resctrlfs() to void To: "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" , "shuah@kernel.org" , "skhan@linuxfoundation.org" , "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "bp@alien8.de" , "Luck, Tony" , "babu.moger@amd.com" , "james.morse@arm.com" , "Shankar, Ravi V" , "Yu, Fenghua" , "x86@kernel.org" , LKML , "dan.carpenter@oracle.com" , "dcb314@hotmail.com" References: <3c00e744acbfa67a1988638f1718cd67382a6f59.1589835155.git.sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com> <5703181d-832b-27c1-4b32-241f5cc868fd@intel.com> From: Reinette Chatre Message-ID: <2e9ea256-cbf4-8222-c639-74479400fd77@intel.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 11:15:15 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Hi Sai, On 5/21/2020 10:19 AM, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth wrote: > Hi Reinette, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Reinette Chatre >> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:52 PM >> To: Prakhya, Sai Praneeth ; >> shuah@kernel.org; skhan@linuxfoundation.org; linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: tglx@linutronix.de; mingo@redhat.com; bp@alien8.de; Luck, Tony >> ; babu.moger@amd.com; james.morse@arm.com; >> Shankar, Ravi V ; Yu, Fenghua >> ; x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel; >> dan.carpenter@oracle.com; dcb314@hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 15/19] selftests/resctrl: Change return type of >> umount_resctrlfs() to void >> >> Hi Sai, >> >> On 5/18/2020 3:08 PM, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote: >>> umount_resctrlfs() is used only during tear down path and there is >>> nothing much to do if unmount of resctrl file system fails, so, all >>> the callers of this function are not checking for the return value. >>> Hence, change the return type of this function from int to void. >> >> Should the callers be ignoring the return value? From what I can tell the >> filesystem is unmounted between test runs so I wonder if it may help if the >> return code is used and the test exits with an appropriate error to user space for >> possible investigation instead of attempting to run a new test on top of the >> resctrl filesystem that could potentially be having issues at the time. > > Makes sense to me to check for the return value of umount() and take appropriate > action rather than ignoring it. But, since this might happen very rarely (I haven't > noticed umount() failing till now), I am thinking to queue this up for cleanup series. > What do you think? That sounds good. > > This bug fixes series will then have patches 16 and 17 because they are fixing a bug > that could be easily noticed. Please let me know if you think otherwise. I don't, dropping this change that makes it easy to ignore an error in this round so that any errors could be dealt with better in a later patch sounds good to me. Thank you Reinette