On 19/08/15 02:23, Michael Neuling wrote:
So this doesn't break when you add a new state, is it worth writing it as:
if (ctx->status >= STARTED)
return -EBUSY;
?
Yeah I think that would be more future proof, although it won't make a
difference with the current code.
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 19:19 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 16:30 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > If we open a context but do not start it (either because we do not attempt
> > to start it, or because it fails to start for some reason), we are left
> > with a context in st
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 16:30 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> If we open a context but do not start it (either because we do not attempt
> to start it, or because it fails to start for some reason), we are left
> with a context in state OPENED. Previously, cxl_release_context() only
> allowed releas
Acked-by: Ian Munsie
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
If we open a context but do not start it (either because we do not attempt
to start it, or because it fails to start for some reason), we are left
with a context in state OPENED. Previously, cxl_release_context() only
allowed releasing contexts in state CLOSED, so attempting to release an
OPENED co
