On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 09:13:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Second thoughts. I'm not really convinced that changing the meaning of
> > notsupported and in fact overloading it, is the right thing to do.
> > notsupported means now:
> >
> > CPU does not support it - OR - architecture does not support it
> >
> > That's not pretty and we are surely not short of state space. There are
> > several options for handling this:
> >
> > 1) Do not expose the state file, just expose the active file
> >
> > 2) Expose the state file, but return -ENOTSUPP or some other sensible error
> > code
> >
> > 3) Expose the state file and let show return 'notimplemented' which is
> > more accurate. That wouldn't even require to expand the state space
> > enum. It just can be returned unconditionally.
>
> Makes sense. I like #3. I can post another version.
Yes, please.
Thanks,
tglx
