On 22.01.2019 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the
> return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should
> never do something different based on this.
>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrc...@redhat.com>
> Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 5ecea812cb6a..4f96450ecdfc 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -2528,9 +2528,7 @@ static int kvm_create_vcpu_debugfs(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu)
>
> snprintf(dir_name, sizeof(dir_name), "vcpu%d", vcpu->vcpu_id);
> vcpu->debugfs_dentry = debugfs_create_dir(dir_name,
> -
> vcpu->kvm->debugfs_dentry);
> - if (!vcpu->debugfs_dentry)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + vcpu->kvm->debugfs_dentry);
>
> ret = kvm_arch_create_vcpu_debugfs(vcpu);
> if (ret < 0) {
>
The interesting part of these debugfs entries is that they export an interface
that is used
by the kvm_stat tool. (and all distributions that I checked have debugfs
enabled).
I think it is pretty unlikely that things will fail, but the question is: do we
want to reject
VM creation if that VM cannot be observed by instrumentation or not? No idea.
This also brings the question: shall we move these counters out of debugfs into
something else?
Christian
