Re: [PATCH v10 03/10] admin: introduce group administration commands

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:01:27AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:34 PM
> > COMMAND_SPECIFIC_ERR is just way too much detail - commands generally
> > just should not fail it's a quality of implementation issue.
> 
> I disagree partially.
> 
> 1. Hw device != sw_hypervisor device.
> Device may fail or error out that may need want sw driver to retry.
> Like Stefan's example, it may need to return timeout/retry intermittently.
> Doesnt means the device is broken at that point.
> 
> 2. A device implementation may not have imposed a certain locking scheme to synchronize VF enablement with VF provisioning.
> ENODEV can reflect two commands not synchronized.
> 
> So Boolean 0 = success, 22 = error is not the right way to craft the spec.
> Many times, those sub-error codes are good indications of what may have gone wrong in the field.
> Useful for the quality issue you pointed out to debug.

Maybe, but I think we can just leave this stuff for later. Too much
hand-waving, when we add commands that actually need this kind of
ability that is when we will add the relevant error codes.

-- 
MST