On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:34:19 +0100
Olivier Galibert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 01:58:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:44:53 +0100
> > Olivier Galibert <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hmmm, I don't understand. Which is the bug, having a sysfs file
> > > creation fail or going on if it happens?
> >
> > Probably the former, probably the latter.
> >
> > There may be situations in which we want do to "create this sysfs file if
> > it doesn't already exist", but I'm not aware of any such.
> >
> > Generally speaking, if sysfs file creation went wrong, it's due to a bug.
> > The result is that the driver isn't working as intended: tunables or
> > instrumentation which it is designed to make available are not present. We
> > want to know about that bug asap so we can get it fixed.
>
> Hmmm, then why don't you just drop the return value from the creation
> function and BUG() in there is something went wrong. That would allow
> for better error messages too.
And (ultimately) make the function return void.
Yes, that's probably a valid approach - we've discussed it before but nobody has
taken it further.
-
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]
