On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:50:46 +0800, Su Hui <suhui@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2023/10/23 13:46, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Well, what are the cases where it can happen practically?
> >>>>>>> Device error. Such as vp_active_vq()
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>> Hmm interesting. OK. But do callers know to recover?
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I think WARN + broken is suitable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks.
> >>>> Sorry for the late, is the following code okay?
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -2739,7 +2739,7 @@ int virtqueue_resize(struct virtqueue *_vq, u32 num,
> >>>> void (*recycle)(struct virtqueue *vq, void *buf))
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct vring_virtqueue *vq = to_vvq(_vq);
> >>>> - int err;
> >>>> + int err, err_reset;
> >>>>
> >>>> if (num > vq->vq.num_max)
> >>>> return -E2BIG;
> >>>> @@ -2759,7 +2759,15 @@ int virtqueue_resize(struct virtqueue *_vq, u32 num,
> >>>> else
> >>>> err = virtqueue_resize_split(_vq, num);
> >>>>
> >>>> - return virtqueue_enable_after_reset(_vq);
> >>>> + err_reset = virtqueue_enable_after_reset(_vq);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (err) {
> >>> No err.
> >>>
> >>> err is not important.
> >>> You can remove that.
> >> Emm, I'm a little confused that which code should I remove ?
> >>
> >>
> >> like this:
> >> if (vq->packed_ring)
> >> virtqueue_resize_packed(_vq, num);
> >> else
> >> virtqueue_resize_split(_vq, num);
> >>
> >> And we should set broken and warn inside virtqueue_enable_after_reset()?
>
> In my opinion, we should return the error code of virtqueue_resize_packed() / virtqueue_resize_split().
> But if this err is not important, this patch makes no sense.
> Maybe I misunderstand somewhere...
> If you think it's worth sending a patch, you can send it :).(I'm not familiar with this code).
OK.
Thanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Su Hui
>
