Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 09:22 -0700, Greg KH a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 05:53:28PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> > Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 ?? 11:41 -0400, Alan Stern a ??crit :
> >
> > > This is a curious aspect of the driver model core. Should failure of a
> > > driver to bind be considered serious enough to cause device_add to fail?
> > > The current answer is Yes unless the driver's probe routine returns
> > > -ENODEV or -ENXIO, in which case the failure is not considered serious.
> >
> > Indeed. I've also tracked my problem down to the hid core which returns
> > -EIO when it fails to drive an unknown HID device, instead of a more
> > logical -ENODEV (this is not a failure to init a known device, but
> > rather the impossibility to init an unknown device).
> >
> > The patch below solves the problem for me:
>
> Damm, beat me by a few minutes :)
:)
> Yes, this is the proper fix for this.
>
> But to answer Alan's main question, I think you are correct, we should
> not fail device_add if binding a device fails. I can see this causing a
> lot of very difficult problems in the future (including the fact that
> I've been hitting this bug with a new driver I'm writing and didn't even
> realize it...)
>
> So, I'll apply this one, and revert the main part of Hannes's patch too.
Thanks.
Stelian.
--
Stelian Pop <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
