From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75F6E1A1894 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 23:57:31 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:57:27 +0100 From: Torsten Duwe To: Denis Kirjanov Cc: Steven Rostedt , Michael Ellerman , Jiri Kosina , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/9] ppc64 (le): prepare for -mprofile-kernel Message-ID: <20151126125727.GA6484@lst.de> References: <20151125172608.9588569260@newverein.lst.de> <20151125172855.49E3469260@newverein.lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:12:12PM +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote: > On 11/25/15, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > + */ > > + return 2; > I didn't find where you check for this return value. That's a pure debugging convenience. The return test is for != 0, so any non-zero value will do. I've encountered situations where I'd really liked to know _why_ a routine failed/succeeded, visible in the registers in the debugger. This is no big thing, I have no strong opinion about this. Torsten