On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.) Sorry if I misunderstood you. Yes, the return -1 has to be changed. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
