Hi Reinette, > -----Original Message----- > From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:52 PM > To: Prakhya, Sai Praneeth <sai.praneeth.prakhya@xxxxxxxxx>; > shuah@xxxxxxxxxx; skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; bp@xxxxxxxxx; Luck, Tony > <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>; babu.moger@xxxxxxx; james.morse@xxxxxxx; > Shankar, Ravi V <ravi.v.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Yu, Fenghua > <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@vger.kernel; > dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx; dcb314@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 15/19] selftests/resctrl: Change return type of > umount_resctrlfs() to void > > Hi Sai, > > On 5/18/2020 3:08 PM, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote: > > umount_resctrlfs() is used only during tear down path and there is > > nothing much to do if unmount of resctrl file system fails, so, all > > the callers of this function are not checking for the return value. > > Hence, change the return type of this function from int to void. > > Should the callers be ignoring the return value? From what I can tell the > filesystem is unmounted between test runs so I wonder if it may help if the > return code is used and the test exits with an appropriate error to user space for > possible investigation instead of attempting to run a new test on top of the > resctrl filesystem that could potentially be having issues at the time. Makes sense to me to check for the return value of umount() and take appropriate action rather than ignoring it. But, since this might happen very rarely (I haven't noticed umount() failing till now), I am thinking to queue this up for cleanup series. What do you think? This bug fixes series will then have patches 16 and 17 because they are fixing a bug that could be easily noticed. Please let me know if you think otherwise. Regards, Sai
