On 28.11.2022 12:06, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 09:21:47AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 26.11.2022 23:19, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 25/11/2022 14:15, Per Bilse wrote: >>>> This patch modifies ioreq_broadcast() to allow partial success. >>> >>> The commit message is quite vague, so it is hard to know what you are >>> trying to solve exactly. AFAIU, there are two reasons for >>> ioreq_broadcast to fails: >>> 1) The IOREQ server didn't register the bufioreq >>> 2) The IOREQ buffer page is full >>> >>> While I would agree that the error message is not necessary for 1) (the >>> IOREQ server doesn't care about the event), I would disagree for 2) >>> because it would indicate something went horribly wrong in the IOREQ >>> server and there is a chance your domain may misbehave afterwards. >> >> In addition I think ignoring failure (and, as said by Julien, only because >> of no bufioreq being registered) is (kind of implicitly) valid only for >> buffered requests. Hence I'm unconvinced of the need of a new boolean >> function parameter. Instead I think we need a new IOREQ_STATUS_... value >> representing the "not registered" case. And that could then be used by >> ioreq_broadcast() to skip incrementing of "failed". > > So introduce an IOREQ_STATUS_UNREGISTERED return code and don't > increase failed if buffered == true and UNREGISTERED is returned, > would that be acceptable?
Yes afaic, but Paul is the maintainer of this code. And of course the new error indicator shouldn't surprise any existing callers. Jan
