[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161130113945.2debb209@t450s.home>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:39:45 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: Fix handling of error returned by
'vfio_group_get_from_dev()'
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 21:27:07 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:36:46AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:06:12 +0100
> > Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > 'vfio_group_get_from_dev()' seems to return only NULL on error, not an error
> > > pointer.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2169037dc322 ("vfio iommu: Added pin and unpin callback functions to vfio_iommu_driver_ops")
> > > Fixes: c086de818dd8 ("vfio iommu: Add blocking notifier to notify DMA_UNMAP")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> > > ---
> >
> > Dan Carpenter proposed a nearly identical patch:
> >
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg141468.html
> >
> > The difference is you return -ENODEV while Dan returns -EINVAL. I tend
> > to prefer -ENODEV to distinguish this error case versus validation of
> > the other parameters. This patch also identifies both commits
> > introducing these, so I'm inclined to take this one rather than Dan's
> > version. Dan & Kirti, I welcome any credits you'd like to apply to
> > this patch for identifying and reviewing the same issue. Thanks,
> >
>
> Could I get a Reported-by?
Sure thing, thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists