Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cxl/mbox: Use mapped errno to determine command status

[Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2026, Alison Schofield wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 10:43:05AM +0800, Li Ming wrote:
>> cxl_mbox_cmd_rctable already maps all mailbox command return codes to
>> errno values. Use the returned errno directly instead of checking
>> mailbox return codes separately to determine whether a command succeeded
>> or failed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Ming <ming.li@zohomail.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - New patch.
>> ---
>>  drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
>> index 55828a836c01..bd91b03c4d21 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
>> @@ -270,9 +270,9 @@ int cxl_internal_send_cmd(struct cxl_mailbox *cxl_mbox,
>>  	if (rc)
>>  		return rc;
>>
>> -	if (mbox_cmd->return_code != CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SUCCESS &&
>> -	    mbox_cmd->return_code != CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_BACKGROUND)
>> -		return cxl_mbox_cmd_rc2errno(mbox_cmd);
>> +	rc = cxl_mbox_cmd_rc2errno(mbox_cmd);
>> +	if (rc)
>> +		return rc;
>
>Hi Ming,
>
>The existing code really seemed to want BACKGROUND as a special case, so
>I searched the history on this one,  Davidlohr and you discussed this in
>2023 around sanitize[1] .
>
>I do think it is confusing and if we can just follow the table codes,
>that would be easier.
>
>I'll let Davidlohr dig in on this one.
>
>I read both these patches as cleanups but no bug to be fixed.

Exactly, the Fixes tag in patch 1 should be dropped, but otherwise
for the series:

Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>

(this patch reminds me that I want to create a cxl-bg-tests + the
abortable bg semantics)