On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 We're strictly checking just for ENOMEMs which if you are getting will get you into problems anyway so might as well propagate that information. kobject_uevent_env() can fail for a short set of other non-memory related issues and those are the cases we are ignoring here including the possible call to call_usermodehelper() during early boot (which I'm not even sure how likely it is, Greg?). >, and then how is it different from crda > failing in userspace to warrant stopping cfg80211 from moving on? This is based on the premise that we are simply bailing out for all conditions on the creation of a udev event but that is not the case -- prior to this we were disregarding -ENOMEMs which I do not believe is correct. Why wouldn't you want to propagate that? Luis -- 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
