On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:02 AM Wang Hai <wanghai38@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> xsk_get_pool_from_qid() fails not because the device's queues are busy, > >> but because the queue_id exceeds the current number of queues. > >> So when it fails, it is better to return -EINVAL instead of -EBUSY. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> net/xdp/xsk_buff_pool.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk_buff_pool.c b/net/xdp/xsk_buff_pool.c > >> index 8de01aaac4a0..30ece117117a 100644 > >> --- a/net/xdp/xsk_buff_pool.c > >> +++ b/net/xdp/xsk_buff_pool.c > >> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int xp_assign_dev(struct xsk_buff_pool *pool, > >> return -EINVAL; > >> > >> if (xsk_get_pool_from_qid(netdev, queue_id)) > >> - return -EBUSY; > >> + return -EINVAL; > > > > I guess your intent here is to return -EINVAL only when the queue_id > > is larger than the number of active queues. But this patch also > > changes the return code when the queue id is already in use and in > > that case we should continue to return -EBUSY. As this function is > > used by a number of drivers, the easiest way to accomplish this is to > > introduce a test for queue_id out of bounds before this if-statement > > and return -EINVAL there. > > Isn't the return code ABI by now, though? You are probably right and in that case this should not change at all. It has been returning this for quite a while too as it is nothing new. But I leave the final decision to other people on the list. > -Toke >
