From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761850AbWLIT7a (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Dec 2006 14:59:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761863AbWLIT7a (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Dec 2006 14:59:30 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:37574 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761850AbWLIT73 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Dec 2006 14:59:29 -0500 Subject: sysfs file creation result nightmare (WAS radeonfb: Fix sysfs_create_bin_file warnings) From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Jean Delvare Cc: Andrew Morton , Paul Mackerras , Linux Kernel list In-Reply-To: <20061209165606.2f026a6c.khali@linux-fr.org> References: <20061209165606.2f026a6c.khali@linux-fr.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100 Message-Id: <1165694351.1103.133.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 16:56 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Check for error on radeonfb device sysfs files creation. This fixes the > following warnings: (Moving to LKML as I think that's a generic issue) As usual with most of that crap about return values from sysfs_create_file, I disagree. strongly. Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a console to be displayed at all on many machines) just because for some reason, I couldn't create a pair of EDID files in sysfs that are not even very useful anymore ? I have _plenty_ of cases where the failure to create sysfs files, while annoying and maybe deserving a warning, certainly doesn't imply completely preventing the driver from initializing. However, all the patches I've seen so far to fix the new warnings do just that (make the driver fail) I'd really like to have some kind of macro or attribute or whatever I can put on a function call to say that I'm purposefully ignoring the error. Is there some gcc magic that can do that ? Ben.