Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on PCI uncore

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > One possible solution is to split the initcall and have one
> > for uncore_pci and one for uncode_msr, but that does not work well if
> > you want to make it a module.
> > 
> > But we should at least have some indication, what worked and what went
> > wrong instead of unconditionally returning success.
> 
> Nobody uses the return value for builtin drivers (short of one
> debug printk).

Which is a valuable tool to figure out WHY stuff does not work, which
you broke for a particular case.

> It would not load the module, but right now we don't have a module.

Though you keep the exit function around for making this modular. So
your argumentation does not make any sense at all.

Make it sloppy first, so it's more work to convert it to a module.
 
> Generally it's a bad idea to print something when a probe doesn't work,
> as that just leads to lots of dmesg spam for large monolithic kernels.

Generally it's bad to just hack stuff into submission and leave the
mess created for others to clean up.

You've been told that a gazillion times in the past, and I tell it
another time, even if I realized long ago, that you are completely
advisory resistant.

Thanks,

	tglx