On 3/26/07, 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?
I don't see any point in deregistering a kernel device, if the event to userspace goes wrong, or a subsytem returns a non-zero value in the filter. Checking the uevent return value, will not prevent any malfunction, usually this kind of "error handling" just prevents bringing up a whole subsystem, or booting-up a box, because the needed device does not exist at all. Thanks, Kay - 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
