On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 01:09 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > 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? Dunno, it just seems pointless to check for an error condition that covers so few of the possible ways to fail here. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
