While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch
propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
---
V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
--- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
- return -ENOMEM;
+ return -EBUSY;
t = kmalloc(sizeof(struct nvm_target), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!t) {
--
2.5.5
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
> While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
> allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch
> propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
>
> Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
>
> drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
> mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
>
> if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + return -EBUSY;
Why aren't you propagating ret in this version?
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
> > While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
> > allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch
> > propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
> >
> > Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
> >
> > drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> > index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
> >
> > if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > + return -EBUSY;
>
> Why aren't you propagating ret in this version?
Well nvm_reserve_luns either returns 0 or -EBUSY and it is unlikely
that return value would change and even if it does this can be
updated.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
>> > allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch
>> > propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
>> >
>> > Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
>> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
>> >
>> > drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
>> > index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
>> > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
>> > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
>> >
>> > if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
>> > - return -ENOMEM;
>> > + return -EBUSY;
>>
>> Why aren't you propagating ret in this version?
>
> Well nvm_reserve_luns either returns 0 or -EBUSY and it is unlikely
> that return value would change and even if it does this can be
> updated.
If you propagate the result of nvm_reserve_luns(), the casual reader
will immediately understand that any possible faulty result is
returned. returning -EBUSY here might suggest you're overriding
whatever this function returns.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:27:40PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:01:22PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already
> >> > allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch
> >> > propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core")
> >> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > V2: return error code directly instead of using ret variable (Frans)
> >> >
> >> > drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 2 +-
> >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > index b8f82f5..c5d71c6 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> >> > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create)
> >> > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock);
> >> >
> >> > if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end))
> >> > - return -ENOMEM;
> >> > + return -EBUSY;
> >>
> >> Why aren't you propagating ret in this version?
> >
> > Well nvm_reserve_luns either returns 0 or -EBUSY and it is unlikely
> > that return value would change and even if it does this can be
> > updated.
>
> If you propagate the result of nvm_reserve_luns(), the casual reader
> will immediately understand that any possible faulty result is
> returned. returning -EBUSY here might suggest you're overriding
> whatever this function returns.
I don't have a strong opinion for or against. That was being done
irrespective of this change already. But you have a valid argument.
I would post V3.
Thanks,