On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Sell, Timothy C wrote: > E.g., so even though no obvious error-recovery occurs above in-response to > kzalloc() failures, the fact that -CONTROLVM_RESP_ERROR_KMALLOC_FAILED is > provided to bus_epilog() is in-fact sufficient to report the error. > > Is this making sense? Yes, it does a bit more, but, you should make this more explicit. > Can you suggest how we might modify our code to make this error-handling / > recovery strategy clearer? Have a real error be returned by the function, and then have the caller handle the error by propagating it back to the firmware through the message. That might save you a lot of boiler-plate error handling logic as well, right? That will make it obvious that if an error happens, it is caught, and how it is handled correctly. Does that help? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
