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;
Message-ID: <69ae1718-0c99-a4a1-645f-5c87271d6bd6@sberdevices.ru>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 10:57:21 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.1
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] vsock/vmci: convert VMCI error code to -ENOMEM
 on receive
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
CC:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@vmware.com>,
        Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@vmware.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel@sberdevices.ru>, <oxffffaa@gmail.com>,
        <pv-drivers@vmware.com>
References: <4d34fac8-7170-5a3e-5043-42a9f7e4b5b3@sberdevices.ru>
 <9fd06ca5-ace9-251d-34af-aca4db9c3ee0@sberdevices.ru>
 <7pypi573nxgwz7vrgd2cwcrtha4abijutlsgtnxrwcgaatdjbz@cwnq5dlurfhs>
From:   Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@sberdevices.ru>
In-Reply-To: <7pypi573nxgwz7vrgd2cwcrtha4abijutlsgtnxrwcgaatdjbz@cwnq5dlurfhs>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 31.03.2023 10:12, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:18:36PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30.03.2023 23:13, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>> This adds conversion of VMCI specific error code to general -ENOMEM. It
>>> is needed, because af_vsock.c passes error value returned from transport
>>> to the user, which does not expect to get VMCI_ERROR_* values.
>>
>> @Stefano, I have some doubts about this commit message, as it says "... af_vsock.c
>> passes error value returned from transport to the user ...", but this
>> behaviour is implemented only in the next patch. Is it ok, if both patches
>> are in a single patchset?
> 
> Yes indeed it is not clear. In my opinion we can do one of these 2
> things:
> 
> 1. Update the message, where we can say that this is a preparation patch
>    for the next changes where af_vsock.c will directly return transport
>    values to the user, so we need to return an errno.
> 
> 2. Merge this patch and patch 3 in a single patch.
> 
> Both are fine for my point of view, take your choice ;-)

Ok! Thanks for this!

Thanks, Arseniy

> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>