On May 10, 2016 5:29 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1430,7 +1430,12 @@ int domain_context_mapping_one(
> > unmap_vtd_domain_page(context_entries);
> >
> > if ( !seg )
> > - me_wifi_quirk(domain, bus, devfn, MAP_ME_PHANTOM_FUNC);
> > + {
> > + ret = me_wifi_quirk(domain, bus, devfn, MAP_ME_PHANTOM_FUNC);
> > +
> > + if ( !rc )
> > + rc = ret;
> > + }
>
> Is there any use in calling this function if an earlier error occurred?
> If not,
It is no use.
We may need to consider this call tree:
$
me_wifi_quirk()--domain_context_mapping_one()--domain_context_mapping()--reassign_device_ownership()--...
Then, what about dropping this patch? Leave it as is,
or remove ' __must_check' annotation and propagate error up to the above call
tree only?
> the change can be more lightweight (while in the unmap case it should
> probably stay as is, to fit the "best effort" theme).
>
Quan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
