On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:07:31PM -0500, Christoffer Dall wrote: > The _very_ good reason here, is that we have two success cases: return > to guest and return to user space. As I said, we can save this state > in another bit somewhere and change all the KVM/ARM code to do so, but > the KVM guys back then would like to use the same convention as other > KVM archs. Can you please credit me for not objecting to returning 0/1 to have different success meanings. What I'm merely objecting to is that "return -1" statement in the code (notice the negative sign.) _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
