On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 04:50:48PM +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 12:01:55PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or > > > false on failure. The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether > > > it succeeds or not. It's up to the caller to translate the true/false > > > into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success. > > > > > > The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both > > > errors and success. It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller > > > virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error > > > codes. > > > > The bug is ... It's not a bug .... > > > > I think what you are trying to say is that the error isn't > > really handled anyway, except for printing a warning, > > so it's not a big deal. > > > > Right? > > > > No, I'm sorry, that was confusing. The change to __virtnet_get_hw_stats() > is a bugfix but the change to virtnet_get_hw_stats() was not a bugfix. > I viewed this all as really one thing, because it's cleaning up the > error codes which happens to fix a bug. It seems very related. At the > same time, I can also see how people would disagree. > > I'm traveling until May 23. I can resend this. Probably as two patches > for simpler review. > > regards, > dan carpenter > Yea, no rush - bugfixes are fine after 23. And it's ok to combine into one - we don't want inconsistent code - just please write a clear commit log message. -- MST
