On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:08:09PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/10/2013 16:59, Greg KH ha scritto:
> >> > Even if it is okay to exit and not create the files (and I think it's a
> >> > bit surprising), I'd like at least a printk to signal what's happening.
> >> > But there should be no reason for debugfs directory creation to fail in
> >> > the end, except for basic mistakes such as the one that Tim reported, so
> >> > I think it's better to report the failure.
> > Creation will "fail" if debugfs is not enabled, so spiting out printk
> > messages in that case is not a good idea.
>
> Interestingly, if debugfs is not enabled we are already returning an
> error-valued pointer:
>
> static inline struct dentry *debugfs_create_dir(const char *name,
> struct dentry *parent)
> {
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> }
>
> which would oops a lot of the current callers.
It will oops? Really? Where? That shouldn't happen at all.
> Very few places use the currently correct idiom
>
> if (IS_ERR(root) || !root)
>
> but it's very ugly... Perhaps debugfs_create_dir *should* return an
> error-valued pointer after all.
Or just don't care about the return value, and all will work out just
fine, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
