Hi Frans,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:06:44AM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> > From: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
> > allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch
> > propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
> >
> > Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Matias Bjørling <matias@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> > index b8f82f5..9ff348f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> > @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
> > struct nvm_target *t;
> > struct nvm_tgt_dev *tgt_dev;
> > void *targetdata;
> > - int ret;
> > + int ret = 0;
>
> Is there any way that you can reach a 'return ret' without having ret
> set by some other assignment?
>
>
No.
I should have been more careful.
> > tt = nvm_find_target_type(create->tgttype, 1);
> > if (!tt) {
> > @@ -252,8 +252,9 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
> > }
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
> >
> > - if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > + ret = nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err;
>
> Why don't you return err straight away here?
Intent was to future-proofing if num_reserve_luns would return
anything other than -EBUSY and 0 but yes returning -EBUSY directly
would be fine.
>
>
> > t = kmalloc(sizeof(struct nvm_target), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!t) {
> > @@ -314,8 +315,8 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
> > mutex_lock(&dev->mlock);
> > list_add_tail(&t->list, &dev->targets);
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > +err:
> > + return ret;
>
> This should not be necessary. In any case, the de-init order should
> always be the reverse of the init order, so we don't end up confused.
Only if we directly return -EBUSY. Good point about getting confused
I would resend quickly by directly returning error. That would not
confuse folks.
I would send an alternate patch which returns -EBUSY directly and do
same thing.
Thanks,
>
> Frans
