Hi Andy,
On 5/19/2020 9:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 08:50:22AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 5/19/2020 1:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:50 AM Reinette Chatre
>>> <reinette.cha...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> + ret = sysfs_match_string(rdt_mode_str, buf);
>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Unknown or unsupported mode\n");
>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> + }
>>
>> From your previous email ...
>>
>>>> + ret = sysfs_match_string(rdt_mode_str, buf);
>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Unknown or unsupported mode\n");
>>>
>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> This is redundant.
>>
>> I understand that shadowing an error code is generally of concern. In
>> this case the error code is set to -EINVAL to ensure that it is the same
>> error code that was returned to user space originally and will continue
>> to be so no matter what changes may come to sysfs_match_string().
>
> It returns -EINVAL and if that will be ever changed this driver would be one
> of
> hundreds who suffers.
Not if we keep this change ... but that is no longer of concern with the
removal of the check as you propose later.
>
> ...
>
>>> Can't we unify latter with a former like ...
>
>> This would have been ideal if done from the start but currently "0" is
>> returned if the current mode is pseudo-locked and user attempts to
>> change the mode to pseudo-locked. Thus, to maintain the current user
>> interface the check if user wants to set pseudo-locked mode is moved
>> after the check if new mode is same as existing mode and thus not
>> unified because that will result in an error returned always when user
>> requests pseudo-locked mode.
>
> Ah, I see now.
>
> But we can then drop the check from sysfs_match_string() returned value, like
>
> user_m = sysfs_match_string();
> if (...) {
> ...
> } else { // w/o even checking for the PSEUDO_LOCKED
> ...
> goto out;
> }
>
> Can we?
>
Yes, we can. Will do.
Reinette
