>> The return is a value,not just an error code. Because of this returning >> an error overloads that value. 0 just seemed like a convenient invalid >> value to check since a vttbr_x of 0 is invalid, but returning a negative >> error code would be as equally invalid. If this is the only issue it >> doesn't seem worth respinning the patch for, but I'll change it to >> -EINVAL if for some reason a v6 is needed. > Have you given up on doing the alignment check with the proper size on > the pgd allocation for this patch? Yes, I'd rather leave the extra check out of this patch. If I were changing the pgd allocation code I would make sure to add a check, or if there were a static check there now I would update it for the dynamic value from the hardware, but it seems unrelated to add several checks to other parts of the code beyond those already in the patch. I did leave the functions in the headers such that checks like this could be added when someone is updating the code for other reasons, say 4 level page tables. -Joel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
