Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] kexec: followup to STATUS patch v3 already in staging

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:47:26PM -0600, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> This contains the two corrections pointed out by Jan Beulich
> for the kexec STATUS call just introduced.
>
> Note: In kexec_status(), the use of test_bit() can also return
> EPERM, so the return value from test_bit() must be checked to
> ensure that kexec_status() always returns 0, 1 or -1, per the
> public header description.
>
> Note: My handling of the test_bit() scenario is to explicitly
> check for return value of 1, so any value other than 1 causes
> kexec_status to return 0.

One nitpick. Subject should be:

[PATCH v2 0/2] kexec: followup to STATUS patch v3 already in staging

and then following patches should have in subject:

[PATCH v2 1/2] ...
[PATCH v2 2/2] ...

However, IMO regardless of that patches can go in.

Daniel

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