From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
tony@bakeyournoodle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Silence 'ignoring return value' warnings in drivers/video/aty/radeon_base.c
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 07:43:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1210196621.1421.5.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080507102310.57b4ccfb@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 10:23 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>
> But they are often an indication that we messed up earlier (e. g. try
> to add something twice)...
>
> > mostly only compromise the user ABI,
>
> Which is bad enough in itself. Most people will want to avoid a
> crippled ABI.
You prefer a crippled ABI or a machine that doesn't boot with no console
at all to see what happened because the console driver refused to
initialize due to such a sysfs file conflict ?
Now, again, that's only part of what I'm talking about anyway.
What I'm saying is basically that rather than have a test & printk in
every bloody driver, we are better off having it once in the function
itself (bloat ?)
In addition, in most cases, failure of initializing the driver is -not-
the right solution, so the driver should probably just warn, which can
as well be done by ... having sysfs_create_file() itself do the warning.
> The first one is the one we really want to yell about, since we've
> messed up somewhere. The second one is not as likely, maybe we want to
> warn about it when we activate debug options?
>
> Which of the current __must_check functions do you think should have
> the __must_check removed?
sysfs_create_file is a good candidate imho :-)
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-07 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-24 4:34 Tony Breeds
2008-05-06 21:39 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-06 21:43 ` David Miller
2008-05-06 21:56 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-07 4:00 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-05-07 4:12 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-07 4:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-05-07 4:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-05-07 4:37 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-07 4:23 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-07 4:26 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-07 4:41 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-05-07 4:37 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-05-07 5:40 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-07 5:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-07 0:54 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-07 1:20 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-07 4:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-07 8:23 ` Cornelia Huck
2008-05-07 21:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2008-05-08 7:34 ` Cornelia Huck
2008-05-08 7:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-08 8:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2008-05-08 22:03 ` Greg KH
2008-05-08 23:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-08 23:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-09 0:02 ` Harvey Harrison
2008-05-09 5:32 ` Cornelia Huck
2008-05-09 5:33 ` Cornelia Huck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1210196621.1421.5.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony@bakeyournoodle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®