On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 02:17:10 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > 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. Agreed. I believe your recommendation below is the right way to accomplish this. >> 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? Yes it does. We'll work out a scheme where all of these functions in fact return their status code to a common dispatch function, whose job it will be to send this status code back to the firmware. This might even let us consolidate/eliminate a few of the other functions we have that deal with various ways of formatting firmware responses, by encompassing their logic into this common dispatch function. That strategy should make it clearer and more explicit as to what is going on here. Thanks! Tim Sell -- 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
