On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:50:46 +0800, Su Hui <suhui@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2023/10/23 13:46, Xuan Zhuo wrote: > >>>>>>>> Well, what are the cases where it can happen practically? > >>>>>>> Device error. Such as vp_active_vq() > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>> Hmm interesting. OK. But do callers know to recover? > >>>>> No. > >>>>> > >>>>> So I think WARN + broken is suitable. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. > >>>> Sorry for the late, is the following code okay? > >>>> > >>>> @@ -2739,7 +2739,7 @@ int virtqueue_resize(struct virtqueue *_vq, u32 num, > >>>> void (*recycle)(struct virtqueue *vq, void *buf)) > >>>> { > >>>> struct vring_virtqueue *vq = to_vvq(_vq); > >>>> - int err; > >>>> + int err, err_reset; > >>>> > >>>> if (num > vq->vq.num_max) > >>>> return -E2BIG; > >>>> @@ -2759,7 +2759,15 @@ int virtqueue_resize(struct virtqueue *_vq, u32 num, > >>>> else > >>>> err = virtqueue_resize_split(_vq, num); > >>>> > >>>> - return virtqueue_enable_after_reset(_vq); > >>>> + err_reset = virtqueue_enable_after_reset(_vq); > >>>> + > >>>> + if (err) { > >>> No err. > >>> > >>> err is not important. > >>> You can remove that. > >> Emm, I'm a little confused that which code should I remove ? > >> > >> > >> like this: > >> if (vq->packed_ring) > >> virtqueue_resize_packed(_vq, num); > >> else > >> virtqueue_resize_split(_vq, num); > >> > >> And we should set broken and warn inside virtqueue_enable_after_reset()? > > In my opinion, we should return the error code of virtqueue_resize_packed() / virtqueue_resize_split(). > But if this err is not important, this patch makes no sense. > Maybe I misunderstand somewhere... > If you think it's worth sending a patch, you can send it :).(I'm not familiar with this code). OK. Thanks. > > Thanks, > Su Hui > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization