On Wednesday 08 March 2006 13:47, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:54:26AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> Bjorn Helgaas:
> >> [IA64] don't report !sn2 or !summit hardware as an error
> >> [IA64] SGI SN drivers: don't report !sn2 hardware as an error
> >
> >I thought hch solved this by fixing the initcall code to not
> >treat -ENODEV as an error worthy of reporting?
>
> That's what happens when I get far, far behind on LKML. I've found
> traces of the threads ... though none by hch, and no clear agreement
> about whether 0 or -ENODEV is right. Some of this code is linked
> into the ia64 generic kernel by default, so I'm leaning a little
> towards Bjorn's position that we shouldn't be returning an error.
There are a ton of drivers that just return the result of
pci_register_driver(). This is typically zero, even when
no devices are present.
There are also some drivers that return -ENODEV when no devices
are present.
Personally, I think the first style is best, and we should deal
with the problem of loading the right drivers a different way,
e.g., with udev. But others disagree:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/3/7/159
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|