On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 12:57:36 +0300 Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Does that make sense? > > Yes, it makes sense. But the original loop will break on the first > failure. If there is an error (ret is not 0) and at least one eprobe > was enabled successfully (enabled is true), > the warning should be emitted, only if that error is not ENOMEM: > WARN_ON_ONCE(ret != -ENOMEM); Ah, I missed the logic for the "enabled" variable. Yeah, when that is set it does the same as the cnt variable I mentioned. Thanks for pointing that out. (I blame still being a bit jetlagged and lack of sleep for not seeing that ;-) Yeah, if "enabled" is set, then we can do the WARN_ON_ONCE(). I'll wait for your new patch. Thanks Tzvetomir! -- Steve
|