On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:27:54 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/12/2018 10:48, Michael Mueller wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 03.12.18 10:21, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:32:13 +0100
> >> Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> +int kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(struct kvm *kvm, u32 gisc)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int rc = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!kvm->arch.gib_in_use)
> >>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>> + if (gisc > MAX_ISC)
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + spin_lock(&kvm->arch.iam_ref_lock);
> >>> + if (kvm->arch.iam_ref_count[gisc] == 0) {
> >>> + rc = -EFAULT;
> >> -EFAULT looks odd. -EINVAL?
> > sure
>
> Can we find some errno return value which is not already used in this
> function?
I'm not sure what would be a better fit here (-EINVAL if you try to
unregister something that has never been registered seems reasonable).
Also, I think it is quite reasonable if a function returns the same
error for different reasons, as long as they are all the same class of
error. In this case, both the caller using an out-of-rage gisc or a
gisc that has never been registered indicate some internal mixup in how
the caller handles the gisc.
