On 05/22/2014 10:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > I agree. > >> > >> > Maybe we should leave this for another day, and have tm_spr_active >> > return 0 instead of -ENODEV when the machine doesn't have the hardware, >> > or not install that hook at all. Seems like the effect will be the same, >> > as the note isn't output if ->get fails.
> Agree. Active hooks which return 0 in case of -ENODEV sounds good to me and > shall > incorporate this in the next version. > But from "user_regset_active_fn" definition point of view -ENODEV is the right thing to do even if we dont use it specifically compared to the return value of 0. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
