From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must_check
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 19:57:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110105185716.GA6753@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110104234440.GC30328@suse.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1992 bytes --]
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 03:44:40PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:05:08AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> > > > should fail if it cannot be requested. Or not. Things get worse for
> > > > architectures I never used before. This is why I think it is really better to
> > > > let people do the fixups who have/understand the hardware in question.
> > > > Otherwise the fixups could indeed be more harmful than helpful.
> > >
> > > Sure, they could be more harmful, but at least try. Make the patches
> > > up, submit them to the maintainers, and if they are wrong, they will be
> > > the best to fix it up properly.
> >
> > Well, I could generalize all cases and always issue a WARN() if the request
> > fails. But this would just move a compile-time warning into a runtime warning.
> > Also, I have my doubts that even the arch/mach-maintainers know all the boards
> > and their peculiarities. There are thousands of them.
>
> Well, they better know the peculiarities of the hardware they write code
> for :)
For the architecture, yes certainly. But for every board? I wonder...
Even if it is possible for one person to fix all the warnings, it is
surely beyond my resources, because I believe it should be done
manually. The pity is: My main intention was not primarily to cure old
bugs, but to prevent new bugs from happening. Some CONFIG-option would
still allow that which is what I'd prefer meanwhile. Okay, I can still
apply my patches locally and simply send fixes for code which I use.
Maybe others will do, too.
> But no, a WARN() might not be that nice as it usually is never seen by
> embedded developers...
Well, not after devices are deployed. It is seen during development
which is also the time those bugs would typically appear.
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-05 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-04 16:51 Wolfram Sang
2011-01-04 16:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] gpiolib: annotate gpio-intialization " Wolfram Sang
2011-01-04 16:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: add missing functions to generic fallback Wolfram Sang
2011-01-04 20:27 ` [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must_check Greg KH
2011-01-04 21:29 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-01-04 21:34 ` Greg KH
2011-01-04 23:05 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-01-04 23:44 ` Greg KH
2011-01-05 11:18 ` Mark Brown
2011-01-05 18:57 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
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=20110105185716.GA6753@pengutronix.de \
--to=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
--cc=dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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®