On Thursday 26 October 2006 01:19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Will crash if cpu_add_sysdev_attr_group failed...
>
>
> Which is a total PITA. If this is the case, then we should modify the
> add calls to at least initialize enough fields before they can fail for
> the remove calls not to crash. You don't want to keep track precisely of
> what file was added and what not and test all of that in your exit code
> path, it's just insane.
Heiko suggested that earlied in http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/9/22,
but Andrew didn't like it.
Currently, the worst is that sysfs_remove_file can be used
on a nonexisting file, but sysfs_remove_group cannot, which is
inconsistent. Either sysfs_remove_file should WARN_ON or
sysfs_remove_group should silently return, and I'd prefer the
latter, as it makes users simpler.
Arnd <><
-
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]
