On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:45PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> +int kvm_psci_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + unsigned long psci_fn = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) & ~((u32) 0);
> + unsigned long val;
> +
> + switch (psci_fn) {
> + case KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_OFF:
> + kvm_psci_vcpu_off(vcpu);
> + val = KVM_PSCI_RET_SUCCESS;
> + break;
> + case KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_ON:
> + val = kvm_psci_vcpu_on(vcpu);
> + break;
> + case KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND:
> + case KVM_PSCI_FN_MIGRATE:
> + val = KVM_PSCI_RET_NI;
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + *vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) = val;
> + return 0;
> +}
We were discussing recently on #kernel about kernel APIs and the way that
our integer-returning functions pretty much use 0 for success, and -errno
for failures, whereas our pointer-returning functions are a mess.
And above we have something returning -1 to some other chunk of code outside
this compilation unit. That doesn't sound particularly clever to me.
--
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
