On Wed, Feb 08 2023, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 2/7/23 9:09 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> Oh, drat, I thought I had checked all return statements ... this must have
>> fallen through the cracks, sorry!
>>
>> Anyway, this is already a problem now: The function is called from
>> kvm_arch_vm_ioctl() (whi
igned-off-by: Sean Christopherson
> ---
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Looks safe to me.
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck
| 4 +---
> drivers/s390/cio/scm.c| 4 +---
> drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c | 4 +---
> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_driver.c | 4 +---
For drivers/s390 and drivers/vfio:
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck
On Tue, Jul 06 2021, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>
>> The driver core ignores the return value of this callback because there
>> is only little it can do when a device disappears.
>>
>> This is the final bit of a long lasti
On Tue, Jul 06 2021, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> The driver core ignores the return value of this callback because there
> is only little it can do when a device disappears.
>
> This is the final bit of a long lasting cleanup quest where several
> buses were converted to also return void from their
QEMU patch that moved the definitions into
local headers, but this one is less of a hassle. (Code compiles fine
after doing a headers update.)
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck
On Tue, 4 May 2021 15:00:39 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Hi Christoph,
> > >
> > > FYI, these uapi changes break build of QEMU.
> >
> > What uapi changes?
> >
> > What exactly breaks?
> >
> > Why does QEMU require
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:01:43 +0800
Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> On 2020/4/23 0:04, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:58:04 +0200
> > Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >> On 22.04.20 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:58:04 +0200
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 22.04.20 15:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
> > Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> >
> >> In the current kvm version, 'kvm_run' has been included in the 'kvm_
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:58:04 +0800
Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> In the current kvm version, 'kvm_run' has been included in the 'kvm_vcpu'
> structure. Earlier than historical reasons, many kvm-related function
s/Earlier than/For/ ?
> parameters retain the 'kvm_run' and 'kvm_vcpu' parameters at the sa
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 16:45:33 +0800
Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> On 2020/4/16 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2020-04-16 08:03, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Tianjia Zhang writes:
> >>
> >>> In earlier versions of kvm, 'kvm_run' is an independent structure
> >>> and is not included in the vcpu str
gt; include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 6 +++---
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c| 2 +-
> 7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +-
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c| 2 +-
> 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:48:23 +0800
Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Wed, 08/17 10:49, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:15:06 +0800
> > Fam Zheng wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -613,10 +614,8 @@ void device_add_disk(struct device *parent, struct
> > > gendisk *d
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:15:06 +0800
Fam Zheng wrote:
> @@ -613,10 +614,8 @@ void device_add_disk(struct device *parent, struct
> gendisk *disk)
> disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_UP;
>
> retval = blk_alloc_devt(&disk->part0, &devt);
> - if (retval) {
> - WARN_ON(1);
> -
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:13:33 +0200 (CEST),
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any chance this will change? I already added a mutex to ps3disk to protect
> against this.
Probably not in the near future. A mutex looks like a good idea though,
since one never knows (and the driver core
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:36:31 +0200 (CEST),
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a probe thread that checks for new storage devices and adds them to
> the
> bus with ps3_system_bus_device_register(), which calls device_register().
>
> I guess the actual bus probe() routine gets
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:57:53 +0200 (CEST),
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Were .probe()/.remove() made concurrent again? I thought that idea was dropped
> because it caused too many problems?
Well, for a given device, ->probe()/->remove() are locked by dev->sem,
so that there can
18 matches
Mail list logo
