On Thu, 9 May 2019 16:48:57 +0100 "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Cornelia Huck (cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Tue, 7 May 2019 15:18:26 -0600 > > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 5 May 2019 21:49:04 -0400 > > > Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > + Errno: > > > > + If vendor driver wants to claim a mdev device incompatible to all other mdev > > > > + devices, it should not register version attribute for this mdev device. But if > > > > + a vendor driver has already registered version attribute and it wants to claim > > > > + a mdev device incompatible to all other mdev devices, it needs to return > > > > + -ENODEV on access to this mdev device's version attribute. > > > > + If a mdev device is only incompatible to certain mdev devices, write of > > > > + incompatible mdev devices's version strings to its version attribute should > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > I think it's best not to define the specific errno returned for a > > > specific situation, let the vendor driver decide, userspace simply > > > needs to know that an errno on read indicates the device does not > > > support migration version comparison and that an errno on write > > > indicates the devices are incompatible or the target doesn't support > > > migration versions. > > > > I think I have to disagree here: It's probably valuable to have an > > agreed error for 'cannot migrate at all' vs 'cannot migrate between > > those two particular devices'. Userspace might want to do different > > things (e.g. trying with different device pairs). > > Trying to stuff these things down an errno seems a bad idea; we can't > get much information that way. So, what would be a reasonable approach? Userspace should first read the version attributes on both devices (to find out whether migration is supported at all), and only then figure out via writing whether they are compatible? (Or just go ahead and try, if it does not care about the reason.)
