On 14 September 2011 12:38, Per Forlin <per.forlin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
>
If error is returned here the kernel prints: "invalid for parameter
`mmc_core.fail_request'"
This piece of information is a reason for returning error on 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
