[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F54AEECA5E2B9541821D670476DAE19C4A879C38@PGSMSX102.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:17:28 +0000
From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Roy Franz" <roy.franz@...aro.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Fleming, Matt" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 1/1] efi: a misc char interface for user to update
efi firmware
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@...en8.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 8:59 PM
>
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:23AM +0000, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > Hmm .... If I combine these 2 flags to become one as
> > "NO_MORE_WRITE_ACTION" to better describing the situation, you Okay
> > with it?
>
> I don't understand, why combine?
>
> Why not simply make UPLOAD_DONE a positive value:
>
> #define UPLOAD_DONE 1
> #define ERR_OCCURRED -1
>
> 0 would obviously mean, no errors occurred whatsoever.
>
Hi Boris,
This is not a return value to indicate what is going now. It is a flag used in
"cap_info->index" which positive value has a meaning of index number.
I am using the negative value for the flag which similar to the implementation
of pointer & error pointer (ERR_PTR).
Thanks & Regards,
Wilson
Powered by blists - more mailing lists