Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] kexec: ensure kexec_status() always returns 0 or 1

2017-01-19 Thread Daniel Kiper
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:07:52AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 18.01.17 at 22:47, wrote: > > 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] kexec: ensure kexec_status() always returns 0 or 1

2017-01-19 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 18.01.17 at 22:47, wrote: > 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. Well, no, and this is rather

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] kexec: ensure kexec_status() always returns 0 or 1

2017-01-18 Thread Daniel Kiper
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:47:28PM -0600, Eric DeVolder wrote: > 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. > > Signed-off-by: Eric DeVolder

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] kexec: ensure kexec_status() always returns 0 or 1

2017-01-18 Thread Eric DeVolder
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. Signed-off-by: Eric DeVolder --- xen/common/kexec.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1