From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751557AbZHRFGt (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:06:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751396AbZHRFGs (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:06:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:36304 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751390AbZHRFGr (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:06:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Rusty Russell X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus Cc: James Bottomley , Helge Deller , "linux-parisc" , "linux-kernel" Subject: Re: kernel segv with 2.6.31-rc6 ? In-Reply-To: Rusty Russell's message of Tuesday, 18 August 2009 12:48:52 +0930 <200908181248.52572.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <4A89CC4D.5040801@gmx.de> <1250549376.7858.96.camel@mulgrave.site> <200908181248.52572.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> X-Shopping-List: (1) Odious honey ink (2) Diagnostic incoherent contributions (3) Androgynous sandwiches Message-Id: <20090818050637.4C3E74730F@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I'd be happy to fail to load it. There might be sysfs issues with it too. That sounds reasonable to me. And I'd be happy to at least look a little and maybe give some advice to anybody who finds themself building such a (free) module, doesn't know why or how it got that way, and wants to ask. > No, the real problem is that it ignores failure. I'd much rather fail > the module load than various features mysteriously MIA. In that regard, I just made add_notes_attrs() follow the model of add_sect_attrs(), which (gracefully) ignores all its failures. I don't know what the thought behind that was. My only guess was that since this is all CONFIG_KALLSYMS-only features, that someone thought turning on CONFIG_KALLSYMS should not add new ways to lose that weren't there before, only new ways to lose the new features that weren't there before either. Having these other alloc/sysfs failures cause the module load to fail would certainly be fine with me. Thanks, Roland