Re: [RFC v1 2/2] vfio-ccw: Don't exit early if state of the vfio-ccw subchannel is not idle

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:54:09 -0500
Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This check is unecessary as we already have the vfio state machine
> to handle I/O requests.
> 
> On the other hand, this check returns incorrect information to
> userspace if the state of the subchannel is not idle. For example
> if the state is busy and new I/O request comes in, this will return
> an EACCES, whereas we should return EBUSY.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c
> index f673e10..3fdcc6d 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c
> @@ -193,8 +193,6 @@ static ssize_t vfio_ccw_mdev_write(struct mdev_device *mdev,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	private = dev_get_drvdata(mdev_parent_dev(mdev));
> -	if (private->state != VFIO_CCW_STATE_IDLE)
> -		return -EACCES;
>  
>  	region = private->io_region;
>  	if (copy_from_user((void *)region + *ppos, buf, count))

Hm, the patchset for halt/clear handling I recently posted changes this
to a check for NOT_OPER || STANDBY. What do you think of that option?



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux