From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753389AbXC0J0B (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:26:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753412AbXC0J0B (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:26:01 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.235]:22768 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753389AbXC0JZ7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:25:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=uW5wmh1iZ3p/T1hZ/JC/7XbU63zRCTYF7Sar/12vILeDrsyrMZWGvXvGNsJFjGmTF1v15nFZkyMdoo9yKbnd2JfEwSZ9HufV4jtY0DMi26NNU6jepSuIRimKUEECmJXneZVqqZ7KzXEjdGyk+qc8E+wP4kDIq2eT73o37ri16TI= Message-ID: <3ae72650703270225k1db9c4a8w6e31b95e007336d7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200 From: "Kay Sievers" To: "Eric Rannaud" Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Cornelia Huck" , "Larry Finger" , "Matt Mackall" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "Monakhov Dmitriy" In-Reply-To: <20070326103432.GB18799@zenigma> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070321202225.GN10459@waste.org> <20070322123508.3785fd30@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <4602752A.5050109@lwfinger.net> <20070322181019.62fe78ed@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <4602D137.4060402@lwfinger.net> <20070323111029.4089ccfb@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070323210618.6a41f5da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070326110949.5301a571@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070326012232.0f0b9e09.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070326103432.GB18799@zenigma> X-Google-Sender-Auth: cc9fd993b45c248c Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/26/07, Eric Rannaud wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > If so, do you think I should labour on with > > > > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I > > > > drop the lot? (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not > > > > sure which patch(es) need to be dropped). > > > > > > This depends on what semantics uevent returning an error code should > > > have. The firmware code was using it to suppress uevents, but > > > uevent_suppress is a better idea now. So if we want uevent returning != > > > 0 to imply "something really bad happened", all uevent functions have > > > to be audited and those that work like firmware_uevent have to be > > > converted to uevent_suppress. This would be cleaner, but I'm not sure > > > it's worth the work. > > > > We're generally struggling to stay alive amongst all the bugs at present - > > I'll drop all those patches. > > My mistake, I wrote the guilty patch > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch assuming it was safe to > treat the return value as an error code, since several uevent functions > returns things like -ENOMEM. > > Should I rework the patch as Cornelia suggests and resubmit later, when > things have settled down a little? I don't see any point in deregistering a kernel device, if the event to userspace goes wrong, or a subsytem returns a non-zero value in the filter. Checking the uevent return value, will not prevent any malfunction, usually this kind of "error handling" just prevents bringing up a whole subsystem, or booting-up a box, because the needed device does not exist at all. Thanks, Kay