On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:07:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 08:50:22AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > On 5/19/2020 1:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:50 AM Reinette Chatre
> > > <reinette.cha...@intel.com> wrote:
...
> > > Can't we unify latter with a former like ...
>
> > This would have been ideal if done from the start but currently "0" is
> > returned if the current mode is pseudo-locked and user attempts to
> > change the mode to pseudo-locked. Thus, to maintain the current user
> > interface the check if user wants to set pseudo-locked mode is moved
> > after the check if new mode is same as existing mode and thus not
> > unified because that will result in an error returned always when user
> > requests pseudo-locked mode.
>
> Ah, I see now.
>
> But we can then drop the check from sysfs_match_string() returned value, like
>
> user_m = sysfs_match_string();
Yes, here some additional checks like
if (user_m == mode)
goto out;
> if (...) {
> ...
> } else { // w/o even checking for the PSEUDO_LOCKED
> ...
> goto out;
> }
>
> Can we?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
