Re: [PATCH 1/2] common: map_vcpu_info() cosmetics

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 01:48:51PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.07.2020 13:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:15:10PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Use ENXIO instead of EINVAL to cover the two cases of the address not
> >> satisfying the requirements. This will make an issue here better stand
> >> out at the call site.
> > 
> > Not sure whether I would use EFAULT instead of ENXIO, as the
> > description of it is 'bad address' which seems more inline with the
> > error that we are trying to report.
> 
> The address isn't bad in the sense of causing a fault, it's just
> that we elect to not allow it. Hence I don't think EFAULT is
> suitable. I'm open to replacement suggestions for ENXIO, though.

Well, using an address that's not properly aligned to the requirements
of an interface would cause a fault? (in this case it's a software
interface, but the concept applies equally).

Anyway, not something worth arguing about I think, so unless someone
else disagrees I'm fine with using ENXIO.

Thanks.