At 03:55 -0600 on 29 Jun (1467172554), Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 28.06.16 at 20:56, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > > Using PTR_ERR() is less disruptive to the code, but will cause > > collateral damage for anyone with out-of-tree patches, as the code will > > compile but the error logic will be wrong. The use of PTR_ERR() is also > > quite dangerous in the context of a PV guest, as the resulting pointer > > is under 64bit guest ABI control. > > > > I am leaning towards the first option, which at least has the advantage > > that any out-of-tree code will break in an obvious way. > > > > Any opinions or alternate suggestions? > > To be honest I'm not worried much about out of tree code, and > the err.h abstractions are precisely for cases like this. So I'm for > the PTR_ERR() variant.
+1, FWIW. Can the x86_64/PV problem be avoided by using non-canonical error addresses? Tim. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
