[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zg2q5fs9.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 16:44:38 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: mahesh@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>,
Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] powerpc/rtas: Rename rtas_error_rc to
rtas_generic_errno
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 2023-08-15 13:52:14 Tue, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
...
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h
>> > index 3abe15ac79db1..5572a0a2f6e18 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rtas.h
>> > @@ -202,7 +202,9 @@ typedef struct {
>> > #define RTAS_USER_REGION_SIZE (64 * 1024)
>> >
>> > /* RTAS return status codes */
>> > -#define RTAS_BUSY -2 /* RTAS Busy */
>> > +#define RTAS_HARDWARE_ERROR (-1) /* Hardware Error */
>> > +#define RTAS_BUSY (-2) /* RTAS Busy */
>>
>> Are the brackets necessary?
>
> During v5 changset I received offline review comment to add brackets,
> hence continued here as well. I can take it away if Nathan is fine with
> it.
OK. I can't think of a context where the brackets are useful, but I'm
probably just not thinking hard enough. I don't really mind adding them,
I was just curious what the justification for them was.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists