From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: punit.agrawal@arm.com (Punit Agrawal)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:39:25 +0000
Subject: [PATCHv4 1/5] arm64: Add support for hooks to handle undefined
 instructions
In-Reply-To: <20141114172805.GD6755@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (Catalin
 Marinas's message of "Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:28:06 +0000")
References: <1415792692-11189-1-git-send-email-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <1415792692-11189-2-git-send-email-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <20141114172805.GD6755@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <9hha93twuk2.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Catalin,

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:44:48AM +0000, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> +int register_undef_hook(struct undef_hook *hook)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&undef_lock, flags);
>> +	list_add(&hook->node, &undef_hook);
>> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&undef_lock, flags);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>
> I missed this. Why do we need this function to return something? I don't
> see how it would fail.

You're right. I don't remember why I changed the return type when
porting this over from arm. I'll update this and affected code.

Cheers,
Punit