Hi Scott,
On 07/01/15 18:16, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 18:11 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
On 07/01/15 17:45, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 10:55 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Scott,
thanks for looking at the patch.
On 06/01/15 20:52, Scott Wood wrote:
Out of
Hi Scott,
thanks for looking at the patch.
On 06/01/15 20:52, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 16:12 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
While we can easily register and unregister KVM devices, there is
currently no easy way of checking whether a device has been
registered.
Introduce
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 10:55 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Scott,
thanks for looking at the patch.
On 06/01/15 20:52, Scott Wood wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you need to test it from inside the kernel but
outside kvm_main.c?
I need it from arch/arm/kvm/arm.c or alternatively
On 07/01/15 17:45, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 10:55 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Scott,
thanks for looking at the patch.
On 06/01/15 20:52, Scott Wood wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you need to test it from inside the kernel but
outside kvm_main.c?
I need it from
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 18:11 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
On 07/01/15 17:45, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 10:55 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
Hi Scott,
thanks for looking at the patch.
On 06/01/15 20:52, Scott Wood wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you need to test it from
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 16:12 +, Andre Przywara wrote:
While we can easily register and unregister KVM devices, there is
currently no easy way of checking whether a device has been
registered.
Introduce kvm_check_device() for that purpose and use it in two
existing functions. Also change
While we can easily register and unregister KVM devices, there is
currently no easy way of checking whether a device has been
registered.
Introduce kvm_check_device() for that purpose and use it in two
existing functions. Also change the return code for an invalid
type number from ENOSPC to
