Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] replace bogus -ENOSYS uses

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/09/16 09:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 12.08.16 at 13:49, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/08/16 11:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 11.08.16 at 20:10, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 09/08/16 11:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mtrr/main.c
>>>>> @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ int mtrr_add_page(unsigned long base, un
>>>>>   if ((type == MTRR_TYPE_WRCOMB) && !have_wrcomb()) {
>>>>>           printk(KERN_WARNING
>>>>>                  "mtrr: your processor doesn't support 
>>>>> write-combining\n");
>>>>> -         return -ENOSYS;
>>>>> +         return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> Will this break the classic-xen MTRR code?  ISTR it was very picky, from
>>>> the cpuid work.
>>> There are no -ENOSYS checks in there afaics, and I also can't
>>> otherwise see any way for this change to break it.
>>>
>>>>  Also, as some further cleanup, that printk should
>>>> become a print-once.
>>> Well, for a message that presumably would never actually get
>>> issued (as I'm unaware of 64-bit capable CPUs not supporting
>>> WC) I don't think this sort of cleanup has a really high priority.
>>> Certainly not in this patch.
>> Agreed.  This was a TODO note, rather than a request for this patch.  I
>> have noticed a few other printk()'s which should become print once.
> Btw., with the MTRR concern hopefully addressed, any chance of
> getting an ack on the x86 pieces here?

Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel