On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:01:27AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
