[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/xenbus: Use 'void' instead of 'int' for the return of xenbus_switch_state()
On 9/29/14 22:02, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:36:42AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> When xenbus_switch_state() fails, it will call xenbus_switch_fatal() > > Only on the first depth, not on the subsequent ones (as in if > the first xenbus_switch_fail fails, it won't try to call > xenbus_switch_state again and again). > Yeah, I guess you want to give more completion for this comment, do not mean the original comments is incorrect. [...] >> >> Also need be sure that all callers which check the return value must let >> 'err' be 0. > > I am bit uncomfortable with that, that is due to: > > > .. snip.. >> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >> b/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >> index 9c47b89..b5c3d47 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >> @@ -337,10 +337,7 @@ static int netback_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev, >> if (err) >> pr_debug("Error writing multi-queue-max-queues\n"); >> >> - err = xenbus_switch_state(dev, XenbusStateInitWait); >> - if (err) >> - goto fail; >> - >> + xenbus_switch_state(dev, XenbusStateInitWait); > > Which if it fails it won't call: > > 354 fail: > > 355 pr_debug("failed\n"); > > 356 netback_remove(dev); > > 357 return err; > Originally, I intended left 'fail' code block for the next patch (which I thought the next patch would need it). Hmm... but any way, originally, I really need give additional comments for it. [...] I skip all other contents which have already discussed by maintainers, if I really miss something, please let me know. Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |