On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 13:37 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.ve...@intel.com > > wrote: > > > > ACPI DSMs can have an 'extended' status which can be non-zero to > > convey > > additional information about the command. In the xlat_status > > routine, > > where we translate the command statuses, we were returning an error > > for > > a non-zero extended status, even if the primary status indicated > > success. > > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.ve...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c > > index 71a7d07..d14f09b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c > > @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int xlat_status(void *buf, unsigned int > > cmd, u32 status) > > } > > > > /* all other non-zero status results in an error */ > > - if (status) > > + if (status & 0xffff) > > return -EIO; > > I don't think this is right, because we have no idea at this point > whether extended status is fatal or not. > > Each 'case' statement in that 'switch' should be returning 0 if it > does not see any errors. Because that's the only part of the function > with per-command knowledge of extended being benign / informational vs > fatal.
Good point - I was wondering just that.. I'll resend. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
