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;
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:27:07 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ZM0rXgKvb912k5BE@linux.dev>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230804004226.1984505-1-seanjc@google.com> <20230804004226.1984505-3-seanjc@google.com>
 <ZM0rXgKvb912k5BE@linux.dev>
Message-ID: <ZM006zd4bpsGBtWF@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: selftests: Add helper macros for ioctl()s that
 return file descriptors
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 04, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 05:42:24PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Add KVM, VM, and vCPU scoped helpers for ioctl()s that return file
> > descriptors, i.e. deduplicate code for asserting success on ioctls() for
> > which a positive return value, not just zero, is considered success.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> 
> I appreciate the desire to eliminate duplicate code, but I think the
> naming just muddies the waters. TBH, when I first read the diff w/o the
> changelog, I thought you were describing the input fd (i.e. 'kvm_fd',
> 'vm_fd', 'vcpu_fd'). I don't think explicitly spelling out the condition
> each time (i.e. ret >= 0) is all that difficult.

Yeah, but it's not just a desire to dedup code, I also am trying to funnel as
many "ioctl() succeeded" asserts as possible into common code so that they naturally
benefit from things like patch 4 (detecting dead/bugged VMs).

I agree the naming sucks.