On 14 September 2011 12:18, Per Forlin <per.forlin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 14 September 2011 12:05, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2011/9/14 Per Forlin <per.forlin@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_MMC_REQUEST
>>> +
>>> +static DECLARE_FAULT_ATTR(fail_default_attr);
>>> +static char *fail_request;
>>
>> This is not used anymore and ...
>>
> Yes of course. Will remove it.
>
>>> +static int fail_mmc_request_param_set(const char *val,
>>> + const struct kernel_param *kp)
>>> +{
>>> + setup_fault_attr(&fail_default_attr, (char *) val);
I am thinking of returning failure here if setup_fault_attr() fails.
if (setup_fault_attr(&fail_default_attr, (char *) val) == 0)
return -EINVAL;
There will be a printk(KERN_WARNING "FAULT_INJECTION: failed to parse
arguments) it setup() fails. Is it too harsh to return failure?
Regards,
Per
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
