[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] drivers: Add visorbus to the drivers/virt directory
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Sell, Timothy C wrote:
> E.g., so even though no obvious error-recovery occurs above in-response to
> kzalloc() failures, the fact that -CONTROLVM_RESP_ERROR_KMALLOC_FAILED is
> provided to bus_epilog() is in-fact sufficient to report the error.
> Is this making sense?

Yes, it does a bit more, but, you should make this more explicit.

> Can you suggest how we might modify our code to make this error-handling /
> recovery strategy clearer?

Have a real error be returned by the function, and then have the caller
handle the error by propagating it back to the firmware through the
message. That might save you a lot of boiler-plate error handling logic
as well, right?

That will make it obvious that if an error happens, it is caught, and
how it is handled correctly.

Does that help?


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:0.174 / U:0.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site