Hi Sai, On 5/21/2020 10:19 AM, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth wrote: > Hi Reinette, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.cha...@intel.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:52 PM >> To: Prakhya, Sai Praneeth <sai.praneeth.prak...@intel.com>; >> sh...@kernel.org; sk...@linuxfoundation.org; linux-kselft...@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: t...@linutronix.de; mi...@redhat.com; b...@alien8.de; Luck, Tony >> <tony.l...@intel.com>; babu.mo...@amd.com; james.mo...@arm.com; >> Shankar, Ravi V <ravi.v.shan...@intel.com>; Yu, Fenghua >> <fenghua...@intel.com>; x...@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel; >> dan.carpen...@oracle.com; dcb...@hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 15/19] selftests/resctrl: Change return type of >> umount_resctrlfs() to void >> >> Hi Sai, >> >> On 5/18/2020 3:08 PM, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote: >>> umount_resctrlfs() is used only during tear down path and there is >>> nothing much to do if unmount of resctrl file system fails, so, all >>> the callers of this function are not checking for the return value. >>> Hence, change the return type of this function from int to void. >> >> Should the callers be ignoring the return value? From what I can tell the >> filesystem is unmounted between test runs so I wonder if it may help if the >> return code is used and the test exits with an appropriate error to user >> space for >> possible investigation instead of attempting to run a new test on top of the >> resctrl filesystem that could potentially be having issues at the time. > > Makes sense to me to check for the return value of umount() and take > appropriate > action rather than ignoring it. But, since this might happen very rarely (I > haven't > noticed umount() failing till now), I am thinking to queue this up for > cleanup series. > What do you think?
That sounds good. > > This bug fixes series will then have patches 16 and 17 because they are > fixing a bug > that could be easily noticed. Please let me know if you think otherwise. I don't, dropping this change that makes it easy to ignore an error in this round so that any errors could be dealt with better in a later patch sounds good to me. Thank you Reinette
