On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 09:35 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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.
We need to argue with Andrew then. I'll have a go tomorrow
Ben.
-
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]
