On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:59:07PM +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: > Hi all, > > > In include/linux/debugfs.h there is a comment: > > /* > * We do not return NULL from these functions if CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is not enabled > * so users have a chance to detect if there was a real error or not. We don't > * want to duplicate the design decision mistakes of procfs and devfs again. > */ > > If CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is not enabled then all debugfs functions return > -ENODEV. However, implementations doesn't check return codes with > IS_ERR(), but with (ret == NULL). Is this done exactly to "spoof" > drivers and make them think that there is a debugfs? Then the full > cycle of debugfs will be dummy. > > AFAIU, this is done to make drivers differ e.g. OOM situations (this is > critical one) and no debugfs (not critical). Is it correct? Yes. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
