Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 12.22.5.235 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=12.22.5.235; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:38:46 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "kwankhede@nvidia.com" <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
        "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "hca@linux.ibm.com" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        "gor@linux.ibm.com" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        "agordeev@linux.ibm.com" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        "borntraeger@linux.ibm.com" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        "svens@linux.ibm.com" <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        "zhenyuw@linux.intel.com" <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
        "Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>,
        "jani.nikula@linux.intel.com" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        "joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        "tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com" <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
        "airlied@linux.ie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
        "daniel@ffwll.ch" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        "farman@linux.ibm.com" <farman@linux.ibm.com>,
        "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        "pasic@linux.ibm.com" <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        "vneethv@linux.ibm.com" <vneethv@linux.ibm.com>,
        "oberpar@linux.ibm.com" <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>,
        "freude@linux.ibm.com" <freude@linux.ibm.com>,
        "akrowiak@linux.ibm.com" <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
        "jjherne@linux.ibm.com" <jjherne@linux.ibm.com>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
        "jchrist@linux.ibm.com" <jchrist@linux.ibm.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        "intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" 
        <intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH v2 1/9] vfio: Make vfio_unpin_pages() return void
Message-ID: <Ysc2RnPC+CsyhPhf@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20220706062759.24946-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <20220706062759.24946-2-nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527643D01DFF0AFCED1614488C839@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <YscUCe+2sXdDiQWq@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <20220707192210.GC1705032@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220707192210.GC1705032@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2022 19:38:49.8402
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 53b255a2-ec61-46d6-b2c4-08da6050510a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[12.22.5.235];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT057.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR12MB6135
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,
        T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 04:22:10PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:12:41AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 08:42:28AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 2:28 PM
> > > >
> > > > There's only one caller that checks its return value with a WARN_ON_ONCE,
> > > > while all other callers do not check return value at all. So simplify the
> > > > API to return void by embedding similar WARN_ON_ONCEs.
> > > 
> > > While this change keeps the similar effect as before it leads to different
> > > policy for same type of errors between pin and unpin paths:
> > 
> > I think it's because of the policy that an undo function should not
> > fail. Meanwhile, indulging faulty inputs isn't good either.
> > 
> > > e.g.
> > > 
> > > vfio_unpin_pages():
> > >         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!user_pfn || !npage || !vfio_assert_device_open(device)))
> > >                 return;
> > > 
> > > vfio_pin_pages():
> > >         if (!user_pfn || !phys_pfn || !npage ||
> > >             !vfio_assert_device_open(device))
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > > 
> > > It sounds a bit weird when reading related code...
> > 
> > Any better way to handle this?
> 
> They should all be WARN_ON's, that is the standard pattern to assert
> that function arguments must be correctly formed.

OK. I can change that. I assume that, not confined to arguments,
we might want to have a WARN_ON for the return value check also.

> I would also drop the tests that obviously will oops on their on
> anyone, like NULL pointer checks. This is a semi-performance path.

OK. I will simply remove those NULL pointer checks. Actually,
that !user_pfn check is gone anyway in the following patch, as
user_pfn is replaced with iova.