On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 00:18 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > I disagree with this patch -- there's so much that can go wrong even if > > allocating the message here is ok that imho it's hardly useful to check > > for errors here. > > Huh?? ENOMEM is the only error we are propagating -- that itself > seems reasonable to propagate. > > > crda could fail, not be installed, etc. > > This is never propagated to the kernel, that is not what this patch > does. Those failures you mentioned should not prevent cfg80211 from > moving on. > > All this patch does is propagate -ENOMEMs. Yes, all those other possible crda failures do not prevent cfg80211 from moving on. But being unable to create a uevent could very well also be treated as a crda failure, and then how is it different from crda failing in userspace to warrant stopping cfg80211 from moving on? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
