On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800, > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by > > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch? > > Looks like it, since it passed the uevent failures to the upper layer. OK, thanks. > > If so, do you think I should labour on with > > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I > > drop the lot? (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not > > sure which patch(es) need to be dropped). > > This depends on what semantics uevent returning an error code should > have. The firmware code was using it to suppress uevents, but > uevent_suppress is a better idea now. So if we want uevent returning != > 0 to imply "something really bad happened", all uevent functions have > to be audited and those that work like firmware_uevent have to be > converted to uevent_suppress. This would be cleaner, but I'm not sure > it's worth the work. We're generally struggling to stay alive amongst all the bugs at present - I'll drop all those patches. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
