On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:41:20 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2020-06-16 14:17, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:57:26 +0200
> > Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:52:50 +0200
> >> Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> int ret = dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> >>>>> @@ -179,6 +184,10 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> >>>>> if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> >>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + if (arch_needs_iommu_platform(dev) &&
> >>>>> + !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
> >>>>> + return -EIO;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>
> >>>> Why EIO?
> >>>
> >>> Because I/O can not occur correctly?
> >>> I am open to suggestions.
> >>
> >> We use -ENODEV if feature when the device rejects the features we
> >> tried to negotiate (see virtio_finalize_features()) and -EINVAL when
> >> the F_VERSION_1 and the virtio-ccw revision ain't coherent (in
> >> virtio_ccw_finalize_features()). Any of those seems more fitting
> >> that EIO to me. BTW does the error code itself matter in any way,
> >> or is it just OK vs some error?
> >
> > If I haven't lost my way, we end up in the driver core probe failure
> > handling; we probably should do -ENODEV if we just want probing to fail
> > and -EINVAL or -EIO if we want the code to moan.
> >
>
> what about returning -ENODEV and add a dedicated warning here?
>
Sounds good at least to me.
