[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <654889ca-05f4-4147-a0bb-6a54c254c243@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 01:21:46 -0600
From: Dan Jurgens <danielj@...dia.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jasowang@...hat.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, parav@...dia.com, shshitrit@...dia.com,
yohadt@...dia.com, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, eperezma@...hat.com,
jgg@...pe.ca, kevin.tian@...el.com, kuba@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 04/12] virtio: Expose object create and
destroy API
On 11/19/25 12:39 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:29:05PM -0600, Dan Jurgens wrote:
>> On 11/18/25 4:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 08:38:54AM -0600, Daniel Jurgens wrote:
>>
>>>> +int virtio_admin_obj_destroy(struct virtio_device *vdev,
>>>> + u16 obj_type,
>>>> + u32 obj_id,
>>>> + u16 group_type,
>>>> + u64 group_member_id)
>>>
>>> what's the point of making it int when none of the callers
>>> check the return type?
>>>
>>
>> It's an API, and return codes are available. I don't have a use for them
>> in this series but perhaps a future user will.
>
> For starters let's address the existing use which wants it to never fail.
> I would say do something with an error inside the function.
> Maybe just WARN_ON_ONCE.
>
I can add that, in my case there's no recourse if it fails anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists