Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180028-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:50:48 +0200
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in
 __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
Message-ID: <1682873e-eb14-48e4-9ac6-c0a69ea62959@suswa.mountain>
References: <3762ac53-5911-4792-b277-1f1ead2e90a3@moroto.mountain>
 <20240512115645-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240512115645-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 12:01:55PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or
> > false on failure.  The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether
> > it succeeds or not.  It's up to the caller to translate the true/false
> > into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success.
> > 
> > The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both
> > errors and success.  It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller
> > virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error
> > codes.
> 
> The bug is ... It's not a bug ....
> 
> I think what you are trying to say is that the error isn't
> really handled anyway, except for printing a warning,
> so it's not a big deal.
> 
> Right?
> 

No, I'm sorry, that was confusing.  The change to __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
is a bugfix but the change to virtnet_get_hw_stats() was not a bugfix.
I viewed this all as really one thing, because it's cleaning up the
error codes which happens to fix a bug.  It seems very related.  At the
same time, I can also see how people would disagree.

I'm traveling until May 23.  I can resend this.  Probably as two patches
for simpler review.

regards,
dan carpenter