On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 08:28:06AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 12:23:02AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > On 2021/09/07 23:57, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > >> Actually, blk_request_module() failures should be ignored, for > > >> subsequent ilookup() will fail if blk_request_module() failed to > > >> create the requested block device. > > > > > > Then how about this: > > > > > > Since we would like to use __must_check for add_disk() we proceed with > > > the change to capture the errors and propagate them and we just document on > > > fs/block_dev.c's use of blk_request_module() about the above issue and > > > how we prefer the errror that ilookup() would return. > > > > Marking add_disk() as __must_check makes it possible to enforce "don't leave > > partially initialized devices". That's already an enough improvement. > > > > Probe functions can remain "void", and hence blk_request_module() can remain "void". > > That is, I would drop "[PATCH 1/2] block: make __register_blkdev() return an error". > > Probe calls can be left voide, but because of the new __must_check we'd > still have to modify all probe calls as they use add_disk() and it would > seem odd to just capture the error to ignore it without documenting > any of this. So indeed, all probe() routines would need to be modified anyway because of the added final __must_check. Because of this I still think that if we want to *ignore* the error, we should just document and ignore it on the caller side. That is, still modify __register_blkdev() to propagate the error, and the caller can decide to ignore or not. In this case we can document on fs/block_dev.c *why* we are ignoring the error. Thoughts? Luis
