Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf: treewide: Annotate BPF kfuncs in BTF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 06:17:50PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > 
> > also given that we can have modules calling register_btf_kfunc_id_set,
> > should we just return error instead of the warn?
> It looks like quite a few registrations go through late_initcall(),
> in which error codes are thrown away. I'm looking at
> init/main.c:do_initcall_level:
>         for (fn = initcall_levels[level]; fn < initcall_levels[level+1]; fn++)
>                 do_one_initcall(initcall_from_entry(fn));
> Higher level question: if out of tree module does not follow convention,
> it would still make sense to WARN(), right?

Ah, I got what you meant now. I'd say returning error makes sense but
WARN() is also useful. I'll send v2 with both.


[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux