![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton writes: > > So we have to add printks in all sorts of places where the > > device_create_file has never failed before. If you're that concerned, > > aren't you concerned too? Not about the ones that have shown no sign of failing, no... Most of the sites I have looked at have been cases where the kernel genuinely doesn't care whether the device_create_file call succeeded or failed. Adding an if and printk in all these places seems like pointless bloat when it could be done in one place - namely device_create_file. In one or two cases the return value from device_create_file can be returned as its caller's return value, but these were the minority. In no cases that I have looked at was there any other suitable action to take. > > why not add a WARN_ON(error) in device_create_file() ? > > That might be suitable, yup. Greg claims that people ignore WARN_ON messages. If that's true, I fail to see how adding printks will help. Paul. - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-10 07:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||