Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 RESEND] xen-netback: prefer xenbus_scanf() over xenbus_gather()

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 25.10.16 at 09:52, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 24 October 2016 16:08
>> --- 4.9-rc2/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c
>> +++ 4.9-rc2-xen-netback-prefer-xenbus_scanf/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c
>> @@ -889,16 +889,16 @@ static int connect_ctrl_ring(struct back
>>      unsigned int evtchn;
>>      int err;
>> 
>> -    err = xenbus_gather(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend,
>> -                        "ctrl-ring-ref", "%u", &val, NULL);
>> -    if (err)
>> +    err = xenbus_scanf(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend,
>> +                       "ctrl-ring-ref", "%u", &val);
>> +    if (err <= 0)
> 
> Looking at other uses of xenbus_scanf() in the same code I think the check 
> here should be if (err < 0). It's a nit, since xenbus_scanf() cannot return 
> 0, 
> but it would be better for consistency I think.

Hmm, this goes back to the discussion following from
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-07/msg00678.html
which in fact you had given your R-b back then. I continue to be
of the opinion that callers should not leverage the fact that
xenbus_scanf() can't return zero. They instead should check for
an explicit success indicator (which only positive values are). But
you're the maintainer of the code, so if you now think the same
way David does, I guess I'll have to make the adjustment.

>>              goto done; /* The frontend does not have a control ring */
>> 
>>      ring_ref = val;
>> 
>> -    err = xenbus_gather(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend,
>> -                        "event-channel-ctrl", "%u", &val, NULL);
>> -    if (err) {
>> +    err = xenbus_scanf(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend,
>> +                       "event-channel-ctrl", "%u", &val);
>> +    if (err <= 0) {
>>              xenbus_dev_fatal(dev, err,
>>                               "reading %s/event-channel-ctrl",
>>                               dev->otherend);
>> @@ -919,7 +919,7 @@ done:
>>      return 0;
>> 
>>  fail:
>> -    return err;
>> +    return err ?: -ENODATA;
> 
> I don't think you need this.

If the other change gets made, then indeed this isn't needed.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel