> I'd be happy to fail to load it. There might be sysfs issues with it too. That sounds reasonable to me. And I'd be happy to at least look a little and maybe give some advice to anybody who finds themself building such a (free) module, doesn't know why or how it got that way, and wants to ask. > No, the real problem is that it ignores failure. I'd much rather fail > the module load than various features mysteriously MIA. In that regard, I just made add_notes_attrs() follow the model of add_sect_attrs(), which (gracefully) ignores all its failures. I don't know what the thought behind that was. My only guess was that since this is all CONFIG_KALLSYMS-only features, that someone thought turning on CONFIG_KALLSYMS should not add new ways to lose that weren't there before, only new ways to lose the new features that weren't there before either. Having these other alloc/sysfs failures cause the module load to fail would certainly be fine with me. Thanks, Roland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
