From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/apei: Fix in-correct return value Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:37:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20161022163735.emhpdrzfbyys7rcp@pd.tnic> References: <20161018160719.31252-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <1979931.ATDSke4qB1@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1979931.ATDSke4qB1@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Punit Agrawal , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tbaicar@codeaurora.org, Len Brown List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:28:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Boris, all fine here? Short answer: Yeah, looks ok to me. Longer answer: I mean, this way ghes_proc() *actually* propagates the return value of ghes_read_estatus() and we don't do any processing if it failed. Which doesn't really tell me a whole lot about the actual processing, i.e., what ghes_do_proc() did. But ghes_do_proc() doesn't return anything and ghes_proc()'s retval is used only in contexts where we're asking whether something got processed or not. And for that, that fix is adequate. So: Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --