Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:08:52 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [Patch] [mm] More driver core fixes for -mm |
| |
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:20:00 +0200 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I've looked some more into the __must_check stuff in the driver core, > and tried to fix some functions (especially device_add() is a bit of a > beast; I split off helper functions).
OK.
> Question: What is considered "good style" concerning symlinks? I would > think I should remove symlinks I created, but most places don't seem to > do this...
Removing symlinks seems like a good idea. Leaving them around might cause a subsequent driver load to fail due to EEXIST (assuming that the caller checks error codes, as if).
I assume you're referring to error paths here?
> -- > Cornelia Huck > Linux for zSeries Developer > Tel.: +49-7031-16-4837, Mail: cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com > > From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> > > Fix missing checks of return codes for driver model functions called in > the driver core. > > Also fix bus_attach_device(), which didn't take into account that > device_attach() may return 0 or 1 on success. >
Yes, this was nasty (oopses).
> @@ -401,13 +401,33 @@ int bus_attach_device(struct device * de > > if (bus) { > ret = device_attach(dev); > - if (ret == 0) > + if (ret >= 0) > klist_add_tail(&dev->knode_bus, &bus->klist_devices); > }
But I made bus_attach_device() convert the positive return value to zero. See ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.18-rc1/2.6.18-rc1-mm2/hot-fixes/drivers-base-check-errors-fix.patch.
Is there a reason to propagate this irritating "1" back out of bus_attach_device() as well? - 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/
| |