Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 16:42:51 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To:     Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        bjsdjshi@linux.ibm.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, pmorel@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vfio: ccw: fix error return in vfio_ccw_sch_event
Message-ID: <20180502164251.577e2af8.cohuck@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180502072559.50691-1-bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20180502072559.50691-1-bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed,  2 May 2018 09:25:59 +0200
Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> If device has not been registered, or there is a pending work,

s/a pending work/work pending/

> we should reschedule a sch_event call again.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Slightly off-topic question: Is the mail address with or without the
'vnet' the one to go for?

> ---
>  drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> index ea6a2d0b2894..770fa9cfc310 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
> @@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ static int vfio_ccw_sch_event(struct subchannel *sch, int process)
>  {
>  	struct vfio_ccw_private *private = dev_get_drvdata(&sch->dev);
>  	unsigned long flags;
> +	int rc = -EAGAIN;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(sch->lock, flags);
>  	if (!device_is_registered(&sch->dev))
> @@ -187,6 +188,7 @@ static int vfio_ccw_sch_event(struct subchannel *sch, int process)
>  
>  	if (cio_update_schib(sch)) {
>  		vfio_ccw_fsm_event(private, VFIO_CCW_EVENT_NOT_OPER);
> +		rc = 0;
>  		goto out_unlock;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -195,11 +197,12 @@ static int vfio_ccw_sch_event(struct subchannel *sch, int process)
>  		private->state = private->mdev ? VFIO_CCW_STATE_IDLE :
>  				 VFIO_CCW_STATE_STANDBY;
>  	}
> +	rc = 0;
>  
>  out_unlock:
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(sch->lock, flags);
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	return rc;
>  }
>  
>  static struct css_device_id vfio_ccw_sch_ids[] = {

Patch looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>

I guess I should pick this for 4.17?