On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:29:52 +0530
Sasikantha babu <sasikanth.v19@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 1) Removed already created debug fs entries on failure
>
> 2) Fixed coding style 80 char per line
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasikantha babu <sasikanth.v19@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index a44eab3..5553723 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -966,11 +966,19 @@ static int __init memblock_init_debugfs(void)
> {
> struct dentry *root = debugfs_create_dir("memblock", NULL);
> if (!root)
> - return -ENXIO;
> - debugfs_create_file("memory", S_IRUGO, root, &memblock.memory, &memblock_debug_fops);
> - debugfs_create_file("reserved", S_IRUGO, root, &memblock.reserved, &memblock_debug_fops);
> + return -ENOMEM;
hm, why the switch to -ENOMEM?
Fact is, debugfs_create_dir() and debugfs_create_file() are stupid
interfaces which don't provide the caller (and hence the user) with any
information about why they failed. Perhaps memblock_init_debugfs()
should return -EWESUCK.
> + if (!debugfs_create_file("memory", S_IRUGO, root, &memblock.memory,
> + &memblock_debug_fops))
> + goto fail;
> + if (!debugfs_create_file("reserved", S_IRUGO, root, &memblock.reserved,
> + &memblock_debug_fops))
> + goto fail;
>
> return 0;
> +fail:
> + debugfs_remove_recursive(root);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> }
> __initcall(memblock_init_debugfs);
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>