On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 08:30:39PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Sat Apr 26, 2025 at 3:30 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > For the I/O operations executed from the probe() method, take advantage
> > of Devres::access_with(), avoiding the atomic check and RCU read lock
> > required otherwise entirely.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs | 12 ++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs b/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs
> > index 9ce3a7323a16..3e1569e5096e 100644
> > --- a/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs
> > +++ b/samples/rust/rust_driver_pci.rs
> > @@ -83,12 +83,12 @@ fn probe(pdev: &pci::Device<Core>, info: &Self::IdInfo) -> Result<Pin<KBox<Self>
> > GFP_KERNEL,
> > )?;
> >
> > - let res = drvdata
> > - .bar
> > - .try_access_with(|b| Self::testdev(info, b))
> > - .ok_or(ENXIO)??;
> > -
> > - dev_info!(pdev.as_ref(), "pci-testdev data-match count: {}\n", res);
> > + let bar = drvdata.bar.access_with(pdev.as_ref())?;
>
> Since this code might inspire other code, I don't think that we should
> return `EINVAL` here (bubbled up from `access_with`). Not sure what the
> correct thing here would be though...
I can't think of any other error code that would match better, EINVAL seems to
be the correct thing. Maybe one could argue for ENODEV, but I still think EINVAL
fits better.
