On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:34:33 +0200 Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > My mistake, I wrote the guilty patch > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch assuming it was safe to > treat the return value as an error code, since several uevent functions > returns things like -ENOMEM. > > Should I rework the patch as Cornelia suggests and resubmit later, when > things have settled down a little? Sure, when we've fixed all the bugs ;) I think we now know what to test for - firmware loading simply collapsed all over the place with these changes. - 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
