On 18.02.20 22:35, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 05:15:57PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> On 18.02.20 17:02, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:46:10AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:27:20AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> On 17.02.20 12:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>>>> So yes, if everything is setup properly this should not fail in real life >>>>>> and only we have a kernel (or firmware) bug. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then, without feedback from other possible users, this should be a void >>>>> function. So either introduce error handling or convert it to a void for >>>>> now (and add e.g., BUG_ON and a comment inside the s390x implementation). >>>> >>>> My preference would also be for a void function (versus ignoring an int >>>> return). >>> >>> The gup code could certainly handle the error value, although the writeback >>> is a lot less clear (so a BUG_ON() would seem to be sufficient for now). >> >> Sean, David. Can we agree on merging patch 39? > > I'm a-ok with adding error checking, ignoring the return value is the only > option I don't like :-) Same over here :) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
