On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:27:40PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > 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>
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
> >> >
> >> > drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
> >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ 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;
> >> > + return -EBUSY;
> >>
> >> Why aren't you propagating ret in this version?
> >
> > Well nvm_reserve_luns either returns 0 or -EBUSY and it is unlikely
> > that return value would change and even if it does this can be
> > updated.
>
> If you propagate the result of nvm_reserve_luns(), the casual reader
> will immediately understand that any possible faulty result is
> returned. returning -EBUSY here might suggest you're overriding
> whatever this function returns.
I don't have a strong opinion for or against. That was being done
irrespective of this change already. But you have a valid argument.
I would post V3.
Thanks,
