On 8/8/06, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
Okay... but do we really need try_lock variant?
We need a nonlocking, nonsleeping variant to do the query in the timer
function (softirq context).
but what is try_lock semantics when taking multiple locks...?
Currently, the same as the undelying down_trylock().
> >> + if (!check_dmi_for_ec()) {
> >> + printk(KERN_ERR "thinkpad_ec: no ThinkPad embedded
> >controller!\n");
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >
> >KERN_ERR is little strong here, no?
>
> Not sure what's the right one. The user tried to load a module and the
> module can't do that; I saw some drivers use KERN_ERR some
> KERN_WARNING in similar cases. Is there some guideline on choosing
> printk levels?
Well, this will also trigger for thinkpad module compiled into kernel,
right?
OK, I'm changing the DMI failure to KERN_WARNING. Subsequent hardware
checks remains KERN_ERR, since failing those after passing the DMI
check really is abnormal (and indicative of danger).
Shem
-
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]
