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
