>>> On 23.08.17 at 10:40, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > On 22/08/17 11:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 16.08.17 at 14:51, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >>> @@ -82,6 +87,8 @@ static void __init set_reboot_type(char *str) >>> >>> if ( reboot_type == BOOT_EFI && !efi_enabled(EFI_RS) ) >>> reboot_type = BOOT_INVALID; >> >> Should this perhaps also lead to -EINVAL being returned? > > Hmm, I'm not sure. The parameter as such was valid. > > So maybe a message right here would be the better solution?
I'd be fine with that too, it's just that with the overall change your series does this shouldn't go silent anymore. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
