On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 04:54:44PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> I think the argument here is that there's no value to validating or
> bounds checking the end state, which could be done in the core ioctl
> before calling the driver if the first iteration will already fail for
> both the end state and the full path validation.
Yes, I had a version like this in an internal draft, it was something
like this:
if (vfio_mig_get_next_state(vdev, set_state.device_state,
set_state.device_state) == VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR)
return -EINVAL;
Which is fully redundant with the driver, only does half the check and
looks weird.
> > Perhaps it is confusing using ERROR to indicate that
> > vfio_mig_get_next_state() failed. Would you be happier with a -errno
> > return?
>
> Yes, it's confusing to me that next_state() returns states that don't
> become the device_state. Stuffing the next step back into cur_fsm and
> using an errno for a bounds/validity/blocked-arc test would be a better
> API. Thanks,
OK
Jason
