| Message ID | 20170627083950.11312-2-matias@cnexlabs.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Matias Bjørling <m@bjorling.me> wrote: > From: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@tuxera.com> > > While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already > allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch > propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response. > > Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core") > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@tuxera.com> > Signed-off-by: Matias Bjørling <matias@cnexlabs.com> > --- > drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 11 ++++++----- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c > index b8f82f5..9ff348f 100644 > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c > @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) > struct nvm_target *t; > struct nvm_tgt_dev *tgt_dev; > void *targetdata; > - int ret; > + int ret = 0; Is there any way that you can reach a 'return ret' without having ret set by some other assignment? > tt = nvm_find_target_type(create->tgttype, 1); > if (!tt) { > @@ -252,8 +252,9 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) > } > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock); > > - if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end)) > - return -ENOMEM; > + ret = nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end); > + if (ret) > + goto err; Why don't you return err straight away here? > t = kmalloc(sizeof(struct nvm_target), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!t) { > @@ -314,8 +315,8 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) > mutex_lock(&dev->mlock); > list_add_tail(&t->list, &dev->targets); > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock); > - > - return 0; > +err: > + return ret; This should not be necessary. In any case, the de-init order should always be the reverse of the init order, so we don't end up confused. Frans
Hi Frans, On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:06:44AM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote: > > From: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@tuxera.com> > > > > While creating new device with NVM_DEV_CREATE if LUNs are already > > allocated ioctl would return -ENOMEM which is wrong. This patch > > propagates -EBUSY from nvm_reserve_luns which is correct response. > > > > Fixes: ade69e243 ("lightnvm: merge gennvm with core") > > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@tuxera.com> > > Signed-off-by: Matias Bjørling <matias@cnexlabs.com> > > --- > > drivers/lightnvm/core.c | 11 ++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c > > index b8f82f5..9ff348f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c > > @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) > > struct nvm_target *t; > > struct nvm_tgt_dev *tgt_dev; > > void *targetdata; > > - int ret; > > + int ret = 0; > > Is there any way that you can reach a 'return ret' without having ret > set by some other assignment? > > No. I should have been more careful. > > tt = nvm_find_target_type(create->tgttype, 1); > > if (!tt) { > > @@ -252,8 +252,9 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) > > } > > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock); > > > > - if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end)) > > - return -ENOMEM; > > + ret = nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end); > > + if (ret) > > + goto err; > > Why don't you return err straight away here? Intent was to future-proofing if num_reserve_luns would return anything other than -EBUSY and 0 but yes returning -EBUSY directly would be fine. > > > > t = kmalloc(sizeof(struct nvm_target), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!t) { > > @@ -314,8 +315,8 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) > > mutex_lock(&dev->mlock); > > list_add_tail(&t->list, &dev->targets); > > mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock); > > - > > - return 0; > > +err: > > + return ret; > > This should not be necessary. In any case, the de-init order should > always be the reverse of the init order, so we don't end up confused. Only if we directly return -EBUSY. Good point about getting confused I would resend quickly by directly returning error. That would not confuse folks. I would send an alternate patch which returns -EBUSY directly and do same thing. Thanks, > > Frans
diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c index b8f82f5..9ff348f 100644 --- a/drivers/lightnvm/core.c +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/core.c @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) struct nvm_target *t; struct nvm_tgt_dev *tgt_dev; void *targetdata; - int ret; + int ret = 0; tt = nvm_find_target_type(create->tgttype, 1); if (!tt) { @@ -252,8 +252,9 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) } mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock); - if (nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end)) - return -ENOMEM; + ret = nvm_reserve_luns(dev, s->lun_begin, s->lun_end); + if (ret) + goto err; t = kmalloc(sizeof(struct nvm_target), GFP_KERNEL); if (!t) { @@ -314,8 +315,8 @@ static int nvm_create_tgt(struct nvm_dev *dev, struct nvm_ioctl_create *create) mutex_lock(&dev->mlock); list_add_tail(&t->list, &dev->targets); mutex_unlock(&dev->mlock); - - return 0; +err: + return ret; err_sysfs: if (tt->exit) tt->exit(targetdata);