Re: securityfs_create_dir strange comment

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:18:49PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Engelhardt (jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de):
> > Hello list,
> > 
> > 
> > in security/inode.c, the comment for securityfs_create_dir() reads:
> > 
> > 	If securityfs is not enabled in the kernel, the value -ENODEV 
> > 	will be returned.  It is not wise to check for this value, but 
> > 	rather, check for NULL or !NULL instead as to eliminate the need 
> > 	for #ifdef in the calling code.
> > 
> > What is the actual callee that can return NULL - and what should 
> > module_init() of a module return when securityfs_create_dir() returns 
> > NULL?
> 
> Hmm, this came from GregKH.  It does seem based on the code that
> checking for -ENODEV is necessary, so I don't understand the comment.

If securityfs_create_dir() returns NULL, then something bad happened and
your code needs to properly recover from it.

Other than that, I don't understand the issue here.

confused,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/