On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:58:52 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 03:45:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:39:37 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Then, we should fix debugfs_create_dir can return errno to propagate the error
> > > to end user who can know it was failed ENOMEM or EEXIST.
> >
> > Impractical. Every caller of every debugfs interface will need to be
> > changed!
>
> If you don't like changing of all of current caller, maybe, we can define
> debugfs_create_dir_error and use it.
>
> struct dentry *debugfs_create_dir_err(const char *name, struct dentry *parent, int *err)
> and tweak debugfs_create_dir.
> struct dentry *debugfs_create_dir(const char *name, struct dentry *parent, int *err)
> {
> ..
> ..
> if (error) {
> *err = error;
> dentry = NULL;
> }
> }
>
> Why not?
It involves rehashing a lengthy argument with Greg.
> >
> > It's really irritating and dumb. What we're supposed to do is to
> > optionally report the failure, then ignore it. This patch appears to
> > be OK in that respect.
>
> At least, we should notify to the user why it was failed so he can fix
> the name if it was duplicated. So if you don't want debugfs, at least
> I want to warn all of reasons it can fail(at least, duplicated name)
> to the user.
Sure. The debugfs interface design is mistaken.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>