On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:56:08 -0700,
Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > IIRC, Al recently vetoed a similar patch. As far as I'm concerned, with
> > > the correct return values, the patch then looks fine to me.
> >
> > We need some kind of check concerning the kobject to avoid mysterious
> > errors (especially checking for the failed kobject_add() is needed).
> > Whether we want just to inform the user of the failure instead of
> > failing the function is another question.
>
> What are you suggesting? I'd love to make the behaviour consistent everywhere
> (and am willing to go through things in order to make that happen), but what is
> the consistent behaviour that we'd want?
I'd be fine with just propagating the error after cleanup (that is what
for example the driver core usually does), but I don't know the
surrounding code well enough for a definitive answer.
-
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]
