From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:07:59 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v5 3/6] arm64: Add framework for legacy instruction
 emulation
In-Reply-To: <CAJKQeMZE_akWY39U3X3a1_-co3da2H03kUkOsZ_5CLrwMn-=wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1416310887-14649-1-git-send-email-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <1416310887-14649-4-git-send-email-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <CAJKQeMZE_akWY39U3X3a1_-co3da2H03kUkOsZ_5CLrwMn-=wA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20141125100759.GA30251@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:58:33PM +0000, Greg Hackmann wrote:
> If it's not too late to chime in, I ran across one issue testing this patchset:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com> wrote:
> > +       ret = update_insn_emulation_mode(insn, prev_mode);
> > +       if (!ret) {
> > +               /* Mode change failed, revert to previous mode. */
> > +               insn->current_mode = prev_mode;
> > +               update_insn_emulation_mode(insn, INSN_UNDEF);
> > +       }
> 
> update_insn_emulation_mode() returns 0 on success, so the condition
> needs to be "if (ret)".  Otherwise writes to the sysctl file are
> immediately rolled back.

Thanks Gene, I'll add that on top with your reported-by.

Will