On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 12:59 -0600, Jerone Young wrote:
>
> > > @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ int HYPERVISOR_grant_table_op(unsigned i
> > > return -ENOSYS;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - desc = xencomm_create_inline(op);
> > > + desc = xencomm_create_inline(op, 0);
> > >
> > > ret =
> plpar_hcall_norets(XEN_MARK(__HYPERVISOR_grant_table_op), cmd,
> > > desc, count);
> >
> > Throughout your entire patch you're using a size of 0. That can't be
> > right.
>
> Glad you pointed this out. Actually, in these cases I use 0 (why the
> patch isn't perfect) to ensure that we are not returned a NULL pointer.
> Since this is code that has just been added. Since the check is not
> needed in theses cases, but perhaps it will always pass and this is not
> going to be a worry.
As we discussed in person, it certainly is a worry. The check should not
always pass, and we do need to test for failure.
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel
|
Home