On 31.08.2017 08:38, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:51:17 +0200 > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 30.08.2017 18:36, Halil Pasic wrote: >>> The function ioinst_handle_xsch is presenting cc 2 when it's supposed to >>> present cc 1 and the other way around, because css_do_xsch has the error >>> codes mixed up. Fixing the error codes also fixes the priority. >>> >>> Let us fix this. >> >> (Nit: In case you respin, I'd suggest to remove the last sentence. You >> already used "fix" two times in the previous one) > > I can also remove it on applying, if Halil agrees (I have not yet > reviewed it, though). > >> >>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> Reported-by: Pierre Morel<pmo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> Space missing -------------^ > > And I can also add that space on applying :) > >> >>> --- >>> hw/s390x/css.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c >>> index 1880b1a0ff..a50fb0727e 100644 >>> --- a/hw/s390x/css.c >>> +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c >>> @@ -1281,12 +1281,12 @@ int css_do_xsch(SubchDev *sch) >>> (!(s->ctrl & >>> (SCSW_ACTL_RESUME_PEND | SCSW_ACTL_START_PEND | >>> SCSW_ACTL_SUSP))) || >>> (s->ctrl & SCSW_ACTL_SUBCH_ACTIVE)) { >>> - ret = -EINPROGRESS; >>> + ret = -EBUSY; >>> goto out; >>> } >>> >>> if (s->ctrl & SCSW_CTRL_MASK_STCTL) { >>> - ret = -EBUSY; >>> + ret = -EINPROGRESS; >>> goto out; >>> } >> >> Using both, EBUSY and EINPROGRESS as error codes sounds very confusing >> to me here ... what's the difference between busy and in-progress? So >> while you're at it, maybe you could replace the code for CC 2 ("CANCEL >> SUBCHANNEL not applicable") with a different error code? > > IIRC, I used these two as they matched my idea of what happens best > (there's a difference between "subchannel is busy" and "the I/O is > already in progress, too late to cancel"). "xsch not applicable" is > very hard to translate to an Unix error code :/
OK, the codes make more sense with your description ==> Maybe simply add a proper comment for each of the return codes? Thomas