On 7/23/20 2:26 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:40:14 -0400 > Collin Walling <wall...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 7/21/20 4:41 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> The options I would support are >>> >>> 1. "sccb_boundary_is_valid" which returns "true" if valid >>> 2. "sccb_boundary_is_invalid" which returns "true" if invalid >>> 3. "sccb_boundary_validate" which returns "0" if valid and -EINVAL if not. >>> >>> Which makes reading this code a bit easier. >>> > > Of these, I like option 1 best. > >> >> Sounds good. I'll takes this into consideration for the next round. (I >> may wait just a little longer for that to allow more reviews to come in >> from whoever has the time, if that's okay.) > > We have to wait for (a) QEMU to do a release and (b) the Linux changes > to merge upstream anyway, so we're not in a hurry :) > > As said before, it already looked good from my side, but the suggested > changes are fine with me as well. > >
Okay, thanks for the info. I do want to send out a v5 of these patches. While working with someone who is implementing the kernel support for the extended-length SCCB, we found some snags. I'll highlight these changes/fixes in the respective patches on the next version. Thanks! -- Regards, Collin Stay safe and stay healthy
