Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/9] drm/xen-front: Implement handling of shared display buffers

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/23/2018 02:53 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 02/23/2018 02:25 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 02/21/2018 03:03 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>     static int __init xen_drv_init(void)
>>>   {
>>> +    /* At the moment we only support case with XEN_PAGE_SIZE ==
>>> PAGE_SIZE */
>>> +    BUILD_BUG_ON(XEN_PAGE_SIZE != PAGE_SIZE);
>>
>> Why BUILD_BUG_ON? This should simply not load if page sizes are
>> different.
>>
>>   
> This is a compile time check, so if kernel/Xen is configured
> to use page size combination which is not supported by the
> driver it will fail during compilation. This seems correct to me,
> because you shouldn't even try to load the driver which
> cannot handle different page sizes to not make any harm.


This will prevent whole kernel from building. So, for example,
randconfig builds will fail.


>>
>>
>>
>>> +    ret = gnttab_map_refs(map_ops, NULL, buf->pages, buf->num_pages);
>>> +    BUG_ON(ret);
>>
>> We should try not to BUG*(). There are a few in this patch (and possibly
>> others) that I think can be avoided.
>>
> I will rework BUG_* for map/unmap code to handle errors,
> but will still leave
>     /* either pages or sgt, not both */
>     BUG_ON(cfg->pages && cfg->sgt);
> which is a real driver bug and must not happen

Why not return an error?

In fact, AFAICS you only call it in patch 9 where both of these can be
tested, in which case something like -EINVAL would look reasonable.

-boris

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel