Message-ID: <5644DB57.7090901@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:32:55 +0000
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Um9nZXIgUGF1IE1vbm7DqQ==?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
        <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] block/xen-blkfront: Handle non-indirect
 grant with 64KB pages
References: <1445264354-23648-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
 <1445264354-23648-3-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
 <5644C111.2020006@citrix.com> <5644CCA8.4090003@citrix.com>
 <5644D19B.4000900@citrix.com> <5644D494.3030700@citrix.com>
 <5644D973.9000809@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <5644D973.9000809@citrix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1511
Lines: 41

On 12/11/15 18:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> So if one get EOPNOTSUPP the other will get too.
> 
> That's why I said that I think it's not currently possible. IMHO, it's
> fine as it is now.
> 
> The only scenario I can think of that can lead to that combination is
> that we migrate the guest and one request gets processed by one backend
> that supports the operation, while the other request get processed by a
> backend that doesn't support it.
> 
> With your current implementation we would return an error code anyway,
> which is not that bad I guess.

hmmm ... We would return an error to the block layer rather than 0
because the operation is not supported.

That reminds me that blkif_recover needs to be fixed to support
splitting request. I haven't done it because ARM doesn't yet support
suspend/resume (CCing Ian who is working on it).

>>>
>>> Should s->status be able to store all the possible return codes from the
>>> response (OK/ERROR/NOTSUPP)?
>>
>> That could would work. However, how do you decide which will be the
>> final status?
> 
> It should be the most restrictive one, for example if we have ERROR and
> NOTSUPP we should return ERROR, while if we have OK and NOTSUPP we
> should return NOTSUPP.

I will give a look.

-- 
Julien Grall
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/