On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:54:00 +0800 Minfei Huang <mnghuan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/06/16 at 11:18P, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:09:18 +0800 > > Minfei Huang <mnghuan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > The error number -ENOENT or 0 will be returned, if we can not allocate > > > more memory in function init_vq. If host can support multiple virtual > > > queues, and we fails to allocate necessary memory structures for vq, > > > kernel may crash due to incorrect returning. > > > > > > To fix it, kernel will return correct value in init_vq. > > The error handling in this function looks horrible. > > > > When mq was introduced, init_vq started mixing up several things: > > - The mq feature is not available - which is not an error, and > > therefore should not have any influence on the return code. > > - One of the several memory allocations failed - only ->vqs gets > > special treatment, however. > > - The ->find_vqs callback failed. > > Yep. And without this patch, it is silent for boot failure. I think it > makes sense to let user notify about this failure. Agreed. > > > > > Your patch fixes the code, but it is still very convoluted due to the > > temporary arrays. > > > > May it be worthwile to introduce a helper for setting up the virtqueues > > where all virtqueues are essentially the same and just get a > > consecutive number? Michael? > > > > Hmm, How about refactor this function to make it more readable, since we > do a lot of work in it. > > I will post an update to refactor this function. Anything to make this more readable probably helps :) _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
