>>> On 11.05.16 at 10:35, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 2016 5:29 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 06.05.16 at 10:54, <quan...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -1430,7 +1430,12 @@ int domain_context_mapping_one(
>> > unmap_vtd_domain_page(context_entries);
>> >
>> > if ( !seg )
>> > - me_wifi_quirk(domain, bus, devfn, MAP_ME_PHANTOM_FUNC);
>> > + {
>> > + ret = me_wifi_quirk(domain, bus, devfn, MAP_ME_PHANTOM_FUNC);
>> > +
>> > + if ( !rc )
>> > + rc = ret;
>> > + }
>>
>> Is there any use in calling this function if an earlier error occurred?
>> If not,
>
> It is no use.
With this I don't understand ...
> We may need to consider this call tree:
> $
> me_wifi_quirk()--domain_context_mapping_one()--domain_context_mapping()--reass
> ign_device_ownership()--...
>
> Then, what about dropping this patch? Leave it as is,
> or remove ' __must_check' annotation and propagate error up to the above
> call tree only?
... this. If calling the function is pointless if an earlier error occurred,
why don't you just check rc to be zero alongside the !seg check?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
