Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf: treewide: Annotate BPF kfuncs in BTF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 06:17:50PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
[...]
> > 
> > also given that we can have modules calling register_btf_kfunc_id_set,
> > should we just return error instead of the warn?
> 
> It looks like quite a few registrations go through late_initcall(),
> in which error codes are thrown away. I'm looking at
> init/main.c:do_initcall_level:
> 
>         for (fn = initcall_levels[level]; fn < initcall_levels[level+1]; fn++)
>                 do_one_initcall(initcall_from_entry(fn));
> 
> Higher level question: if out of tree module does not follow convention,
> it would still make sense to WARN(), right?

Ah, I got what you meant now. I'd say returning error makes sense but
WARN() is also useful. I'll send v2 with both.

[...]




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux