[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de21de51-1589-edb1-3dd1-b7065eb8fb3c@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:03:46 +0700
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: jroedel@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu: Fix iommu_unmap and iommu_unmap_fast return
type
Hi Robin,
On 2/1/18 1:02 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Hi Suravee,
>
> On 31/01/18 01:48, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> Currently, iommu_unmap and iommu_unmap_fast return unmapped
>> pages with size_t. However, the actual value returned could
>> be error codes (< 0), which can be misinterpreted as large
>> number of unmapped pages. Therefore, change the return type to ssize_t.
>>
>> Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
>> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 6 +++---
>> drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 4 ++--
>
> Er, there are a few more drivers than that implementing iommu_ops ;)
Ahh right.
>
> It seems like it might be more sensible to fix the single instance of a driver returning -EINVAL (which appears to be a "should never happen if used correctly" kinda thing anyway) and leave the API-internal callback prototype as-is. I do agree the inconsistency of iommu_unmap() itself wants sorting, though (particularly the !IOMMU_API stubs which are wrong either way).
>
> Robin.
Make sense. I'll leave the API alone, and change the code to not returning error then.
There are a few places to fix.
Thanks,
Suravee
Powered by blists - more mailing lists