>
From: Michael S. Tsirkin <>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:34 PM
> COMMAND_SPECIFIC_ERR is just way too much detail - commands generally
> just should not fail it's a quality of implementation issue.
I disagree partially.
1. Hw device != sw_hypervisor device.
Device may fail or error out that may need want sw driver to retry.
Like Stefan's example, it may need to return timeout/retry intermittently.
Doesnt means the device is broken at that point.
2. A device implementation may not have imposed a certain locking scheme to synchronize VF enablement with VF provisioning.
ENODEV can reflect two commands not synchronized.
So Boolean 0 = success, 22 = error is not the right way to craft the spec.
Many times, those sub-error codes are good indications of what may have gone wrong in the field.
Useful for the quality issue you pointed out to debug.
