On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:36:02AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:45:31 +1000
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> > spapr_irq_claim() and the hooks it is based on return an integer error code
> > as well as taking an Error ** parameter. But none of the callers check the
> > integer, so w
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:45:31 +1000
David Gibson wrote:
> spapr_irq_claim() and the hooks it is based on return an integer error code
> as well as taking an Error ** parameter. But none of the callers check the
> integer, so we can remove it and just use the richer Error **.
>
> Signed-off-by: D
On 9/25/19 8:45 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> spapr_irq_claim() and the hooks it is based on return an integer error code
> as well as taking an Error ** parameter. But none of the callers check the
> integer, so we can remove it and just use the richer Error **.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson
> --
On 25/09/2019 08:45, David Gibson wrote:
> spapr_irq_claim() and the hooks it is based on return an integer error code
> as well as taking an Error ** parameter. But none of the callers check the
> integer, so we can remove it and just use the richer Error **.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson
Re
spapr_irq_claim() and the hooks it is based on return an integer error code
as well as taking an Error ** parameter. But none of the callers check the
integer, so we can remove it and just use the richer Error **.
Signed-off-by: David Gibson
---
hw/ppc/spapr_irq.c | 32 +
