Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] vfio: ccw: add traceponits for interesting error paths | From | Halil Pasic <> | Date | Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:51:54 +0200 |
| |
On 04/30/2018 05:03 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> I think the naming of this fctl thing is a bit cryptic, >> but if we don't see this as ABI I'm fine with it -- can be improved. >> What would be a better name? I was thinking along the lines accept_request. >> (Bad error code would mean that the request did not get accepted. Good >> code does not mean the requested function was performed successfully.) > I think fctl is fine (if you don't understand what 'fctl' is, you're > unlikely to understand it even if it were named differently.) >
AFAIU this fctl is a bit more complicated than the normal fctl. But better let sleeping dogs lie.
>> Also I think vfio_ccw_io_fctl with no zero error code would make sense >> as dev_warn. If I were an admin looking into a problem I would very much >> appreciate seeing something in the messages log (and not having to enable >> tracing first). This point seems to be a good one for high level 'request gone >> bad' kind of report. Opinions? > I'd also exclude -EOPNOTSUPP (as this also might happen with e.g. a halt/clear enabled user space, which probes availability of halt/clear support by giving it a try once (yes, I really want to post my patches this week.)) >
I'm looking forward to the clear/halt. It hope it will help me understand the big vfio-ccw picture better. There are still dark spots, but I don't feel like doing something against this, as there is quite some activity going on here -- and I don't want to hamper the efforts by binding resources.
Regards, Halil
| |