On 05/14/2010 01:09 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > 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. > will check what is effects for changing all to 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. >>> in other mail. and updated version in the git dropped that lmb_add_region exposing. Thanks Yinghai -- 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
