On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 11:54:50PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +void vfio_unpin_pages(struct vfio_device *device, unsigned long *user_pfn,
> > + int npage)
> > {
> > struct vfio_container *container;
> > struct vfio_iommu_driver *driver;
> > - int ret;
> >
> > - if (!user_pfn || !npage || !vfio_assert_device_open(device))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!user_pfn || !npage ||
> > !vfio_assert_device_open(device)))
>
> This adds an overly long line. Note that I think in general it is
> better to have an individual WARN_ON per condition anyway, as that
> allows to directly pinpoint what went wrong when it triggers.
Following patches are touching this line too. And it'll be shrunk
to a shorter line eventually by the end of PATCH-9.
Yet, I can separate them as you pointed out.
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(unlikely(!driver || !driver->ops->unpin_pages)))
> > + return;
>
> I'd just skip this check an let it crash. If someone calls unpin
> on something totally random that wasn't even pinned we don't need to
> handle that gracefully.
Makes sense. I can drop that in next version.
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>
Will add to v3. Thanks for the review!
