Re: [Xen-devel] Followup corrections to kexec STATUS patch v3

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:01:06PM -0600, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> This contains the two corrections pointed out by Jan Beulich
> for the kexec STATUS call just introduced.
>
> Note: In kexec_status(), 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.
>
> Note: My handling of the test_bit() scenario is to explicitly
> check for return value of 1, so any value other than 1 causes
> kexec_status to return 0.

Great, however:
  - please use "git format-patch -n ..." to create patches,
  - first patch in the series should have [PATCH 0/3] in the subject,
  - both patches lack of your SOB.

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel