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
>>> 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
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
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