On Fri 2018-04-06 17:34:20, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:23:14PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > @@ -150,6 +149,23 @@ static void *__klp_shadow_get_or_alloc(void *obj, unsigned long id, void *data,
> > goto exists;
> > }
> >
> > + new_shadow->obj = obj;
> > + new_shadow->id = id;
> > +
> > + if (ctor) {
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err = ctor(obj, new_shadow->data, ctor_data);
> > + if (err) {
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&klp_shadow_lock, flags);
> > + kfree(new_shadow);
> > + WARN(1,
> > + "Failed to construct shadow variable <%p, %lx>\n",
> > + obj, id);
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
>
> I'm not sure why a constructor would return an error, though I guess it
> doesn't hurt to allow it.
It is true that constructors usually do not return an error code,
namely C++ or Java. But it is not true that they could not fail.
These languages use exceptions instead.
IMHO, the return value makes sense here.
> The WARN seems excessive though, IMO. The constructor itself can warn
> (or printk or whatever else) if it thinks its warranted.
I am just fascinated by WARN(). But you are right. I am going to
replace it with
pr_err("Failed to construct shadow variable <%p, %lx> (%d)\n",
obj, id, err);
> Also I think the 'err' variable isn't really needed.
Yup. Well, it will be needed by the pr_err() ;-)
Best Regard,
Petr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
