On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 11:12:15PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2024 9:31 AM
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 07:42:46AM -0800, mhkelley58@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > If the util_init function call in util_probe() returns an error code,
> > > util_probe() always return ENODEV, and the error code from the util_init
> > > function is lost. The error message output in the caller, vmbus_probe(),
> > > doesn't show the real error code.
> > >
> > > Fix this by just returning the error code from the util_init function.
> > > There doesn't seem to be a reason to force ENODEV, as other errors
> > > such as ENOMEM can already be returned from util_probe(). And the
> > > code in call_driver_probe() implies that ENODEV should mean that a
> > > matching driver wasn't found, which is not the case here.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2: None. This is the first version of Patch 1 of this series.
> > > The "v2" is due to changes to Patch 2 of the series.
> > >
> > > drivers/hv/hv_util.c | 4 +---
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hv/hv_util.c b/drivers/hv/hv_util.c
> > > index c4f525325790..370722220134 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hv/hv_util.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hv/hv_util.c
> > > @@ -590,10 +590,8 @@ static int util_probe(struct hv_device *dev,
> > > srv->channel = dev->channel;
> > > if (srv->util_init) {
> > > ret = srv->util_init(srv);
> > > - if (ret) {
> > > - ret = -ENODEV;
> > > + if (ret)
> > > goto error1;
> > > - }
> >
> > After reviewing V2 of this series, I couldn’t find any scenario where
> > 'util_init' in any driver returns a value other than 0.
>
> Yeah, I noticed the same thing when doing this patch set.
>
> > In such cases,
> > could we consider making all these functions 'void' ?
> >
> > After this ee can remove the check for util_int return type.
>
> I decided against making these changes. It seemed like code churn
> for not much benefit. And there's the possibility of some future
> change reintroducing an error code in one of the util_init functions,
> in which case we would need to put things back like they are now.
> Certainly this is a judgment call, but my take was to leave things
> as they are.
>
> The changes you suggest would probably go as a third patch in
> the series. Wei Liu has already picked up the two patches as they
> are, so it would be fine to create an independent patch with the
> changes you suggest, if we want to go that route. My preference
> isn't that strong either way.
I realized later that the patch is already merged. I believe it's fine
to leave it as is unless someone feels motivated enough to push this change.
- Saurabh
