[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/10] admin: introduce group administration commands
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:04:42PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 03/03/2023 15:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 08:17:03AM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 07:01:56PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:19:12PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 06:40:29PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 8:05 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > +When \field{status} is VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_OK, \field{status_qialifier} > > > > > > > +is reserved and set to zero by the device. > > > > > > > + > > > > > > s/status_qialifier/status_qualifier > > > > > > Missed from v10 of Feb. > > > > > > > > > > > > > +When \field{status} is VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_EINVAL, the following table > > > > > > > +describes possible \field{status_qialifier} values: > > > > > > s/status_qialifier/status_qualifier > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please add other useful error codes in addition to the EINVAL? > > > > > > Few that we are needed EAGAIN, ENOMEM, EBUSY, ENODEV. > > > > > > > > > > Please define a unique constant for each error condition that can occur > > > > > instead of sharing catch-all errno constants between multiple error > > > > > conditions. If a driver wants to squash them together into an errno, > > > > > that's fine, but I think doing this at the hardware interface level is > > > > > just propagating the mistakes of errnos. > > > > > > > > > > Only status_qualifier is needed and the vague status field can be > > > > > dropped. It's not clear to me why adding EAGAIN, ENOMEM, EBUSY, and > > > > > ENODEV is useful. They have no meaning to the driver, only the > > > > > status_qualifier really indicates what is going on. > > > > > > > > At a high level at the moment we have only two cases: > > > > - ok > > > > - invalid input supplied by driver > > > > > > > > maybe we will have more reasons for a failure - remains to > > > > be seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure you guys have discussed this previously, but please provide > > > > > rationale in the spec because it looks weird to someone with fresh eyes. > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > Really most drivers just want to propagate errno to userspace. > > > > All the detailed reporting is for sure well intentional but > > > > in the end it is at best printed into log - end to end > > > > people just end up with a switch statement > > > > converting these to errno codes. > > > > So we are passing them from device and this way there will be > > > > some uniformity. > > > > > > Please clarify the rationale in the spec. I don't agree with it, as > > > explained in my earlier email, but as long as its documented, people can > > > try to follow it. > > > > > > Stefan > > > > It's 2:2 for now, you are with Parav, me and Cornelia like it :) > > Or I will try to document it better. > I don't understand this status_qualifier as well and it wasn't included in > my original patch set. Sounds like you feel I should drop your S.O.B - is this the complaint? I wanted to give attribution since I started with that but sure, no problem. > I vote for "status" that describe generic status codes and > "command_specific_error" that should be inspected by the driver only if > "status" is set to "VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_COMMAND_SPECIFIC_ERR". > We discussed this so many times before (and already agreed IIRC) and adding > this new qualifiers mechanism sounds not right to me and not intuitive for > device and driver developers. > > I suggest: > > 1. VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_OPCODE > 2. VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_FIELD > 3. VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_GROUP > 4. VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_Q_INVALID_MEMBER > 5. VIRTIO_ADMIN_STATUS_COMMAND_SPECIFIC_ERR (for more info read the > command_specific_error field). I don't think it's a good idea, we'll have to agree to disagree. The point is simple. We can have a detailed virtio specific error. Nice for debugging most drivers won't know what to do with it. This is the status_qualifier. Very detailed but generally drivers will just have a giant switch statement translating it to a simple error code for userspace. So to save everyone work, we also added "status" a generic kind of error class that is easy to pass to userspace with a small switch statement. COMMAND_SPECIFIC_ERR is just way too much detail - commands generally just should not fail it's a quality of implementation issue. > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]