On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:40:14 -0400 Collin Walling <wall...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/20 4:41 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > The options I would support are > > > > 1. "sccb_boundary_is_valid" which returns "true" if valid > > 2. "sccb_boundary_is_invalid" which returns "true" if invalid > > 3. "sccb_boundary_validate" which returns "0" if valid and -EINVAL if not. > > > > Which makes reading this code a bit easier. > > Of these, I like option 1 best. > > Sounds good. I'll takes this into consideration for the next round. (I > may wait just a little longer for that to allow more reviews to come in > from whoever has the time, if that's okay.) We have to wait for (a) QEMU to do a release and (b) the Linux changes to merge upstream anyway, so we're not in a hurry :) As said before, it already looked good from my side, but the suggested changes are fine with me as well.
