> Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 01/10] RDMA: Restore ability to fail on PD > deallocate > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:06:03AM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > Which then boils down do we just keep a simpler definition of the API > > contract -- driver can just return whatever the true error code is? > > No, that was always wrong. In almost every case returning codes from destroy is a > driver bug, flat out. It causes kernel leaking memory/worse and unrecoverable > userspace failures. > seems like we are opening a can then. I can see a new provider seeing the int return type and returning error codes. And maybe being stumped by seeing some providers ignoring device errors and faking a success. And one provider returning error codes. More so, how are we going to document the ambiguous definition of this API, and who can and cannot report error codes?
