Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 15/19] selftests/resctrl: Change return type of umount_resctrlfs() to void | From | Reinette Chatre <> | Date | Thu, 21 May 2020 11:15:15 -0700 |
| |
Hi Sai,
On 5/21/2020 10:19 AM, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth wrote: > Hi Reinette, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:52 PM >> To: Prakhya, Sai Praneeth <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>; >> shuah@kernel.org; skhan@linuxfoundation.org; linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: tglx@linutronix.de; mingo@redhat.com; bp@alien8.de; Luck, Tony >> <tony.luck@intel.com>; babu.moger@amd.com; james.morse@arm.com; >> Shankar, Ravi V <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>; Yu, Fenghua >> <fenghua.yu@intel.com>; x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel; >> dan.carpenter@oracle.com; dcb314@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
| |