[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Why is device_create_file __must_check?
    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.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-10-10 09:07    [W:0.018 / U:3.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site