From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755502AbaFLBiN (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:38:13 -0400 Received: from ns.horizon.com ([71.41.210.147]:15945 "HELO ns.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754411AbaFLBiJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:38:09 -0400 Date: 11 Jun 2014 21:38:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20140612013808.20579.qmail@ns.horizon.com> From: "George Spelvin" To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@horizon.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] lib: glob.c: Add CONFIG_GLOB_SELFTEST Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, rdunlap@infradead.org, tj@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20140611160452.7715d3c4a0cb584e8b507da7@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Persuading GCC to throw away *all* the self-test data after running >> it was surprisingly annoying. > > Yeah. Props for making the attempt. *Whew*. I was worried I'd get upbraided for overoptimziation. >> The one thing I'm not really sure about is what to do if the self-test >> fails. For now, I make the module_init function fail too. Opinions? > > The printk should suffice - someone will notice it eventually. > > Using KERN_ERR to report a failure might help draw attention to it. I'm not sure what you mean by "might"; I already *do* report it as KERN_ERR. If you think failing the module load is a bad idea, feel free to modify the patch.