From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0488D1A0151 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:11:47 +1000 (AEST) Received: from e23smtp07.au.ibm.com (e23smtp07.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A6814012C for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:11:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp07.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:11:45 +1000 Received: from d23relay10.au.ibm.com (d23relay10.au.ibm.com [9.190.26.77]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEC82CE802D for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:11:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay10.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t7INBYaO40173726 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:11:42 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t7INB9cs029607 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:11:09 +1000 Message-ID: <55D3BB7D.9040402@au1.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:10:53 +1000 From: Andrew Donnellan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Neuling , Michael Ellerman CC: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, imunsie@au1.ibm.com, dja@axtens.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl: Allow release of contexts which have been OPENED but not STARTED References: <1439879415-9925-1-git-send-email-andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com> <1439889583.31374.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> <1439914990.1628.6.camel@neuling.org> In-Reply-To: <1439914990.1628.6.camel@neuling.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 19/08/15 02:23, Michael Neuling wrote: >> So this doesn't break when you add a new state, is it worth writing it as: >> >> if (ctx->status >= STARTED) >> return -EBUSY; >> >> ? > > Yeah I think that would be more future proof, although it won't make a > difference with the current code. Sounds reasonable, I'll submit a V2. Andrew -- Andrew Donnellan Software Engineer, OzLabs andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com Australia Development Lab, Canberra +61 2 6201 8874 (work) IBM Australia Limited