On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:56:35 -0700,
Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:31:12PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So Al, are you ok with this one?
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Ok, I think I have it consistent now. I also ran it through checkpatch.pl :-)
>
> /D
>
>
> [FILESYSTEM] add_partition ignores errors
>
> Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> block/ioctl.c | 9 +++++++--
> fs/partitions/check.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> include/linux/genhd.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
OK, the kobject error handling looks fine to me.
-
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]
