On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:19 -0700, Yinghai wrote: > > If we expose LMB_ERROR then all lmb calls that can fail should > return > > that. However, the API calls all return 0 instead. Changing that > means > > fixing all callers. > > ok will stop use LMB_ERROR out lib/lmb.c > > will go back to use -1ULL for x86 path. No. That is not the point. Read the rest of my email ! We need to -sanitize- those errors. _Maybe_ exposing LMB_ERROR is the right way to do so, but in that case, we need to make -all- function use the same error code. Right now, some fail with 0 and some with LMB_ERROR. You are also not responding to my other comments such as: > > I'm also not too happy with exposing lmb_add_region(). Why would you > > ever need to expose it ? Just call lmb_reserve() if you want to > reserve > > something. lmb_add_region() is an internal function and has no > business > > being used outside of the main lmb.c file. etc... Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html