>On 29/01/15 15:40, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> It would be nice to have two variants (1) index based & (2) address
>>> based.
>>
>> Understood. The direction from Ingo was to have address based external
>> interface imr_del_range() and support an index based internal
>> imr_clear() - internally.
>>
>> So - in order to get test coverage - I'll move the self-test code back
>> into the main IMR code
It will be nice to have the separation of test code. However, that also means
the index-based variant needs to be external function.
Ingo, what is your preference?
>>
>> Not as pretty that way - but better coverage :)
>
>Talking to myself in public...
>
>Second (third) thought - there's no advantage to moving the test code back in -
>since imr_add_range() won't return the index anymore...
It does. See below from v6:
+ ret = imr_write(idev, reg, &imr, lock);
^^ =========== IMR ID
+
+done:
+ mutex_unlock(&idev->lock);
+ return ret == 0 ? reg : ret;
^^ ============ IMR ID
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(imr_add_range);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
