> > > > > > goto err; > > > > > > > > You should never care if a debugfs call fails or not. > > > > > > The system should not be dependent on the debug feature but, it is > > > always good to know if there our system is failing > > > > And what can you do if it is "failing"? Really nothing, so there's > > nothing to check here. > > As far as I can see the function debugfs_create_file may fail for a few > reasons and > it return NULL if this is happening. > I might ignore the error as you suggested, but I'm not sure why not to give a > hint > in log that this happened. > Second, as far as I scanned the kernel sources, checking the return value of > this > function and acting on this is very common. > > > > Also, this will > > > > "fail" if you don't have CONFIG_DEBUGFS enabled, which means you are > > > > using the api wrong :( > > > > > > The whole file is not compiled if CONFIG_DEBUGFS is not set, please see > > > the > > Makefile > > > > Ok, then you don't need to check anything. Debugfs was created to be > > dirt-simple, don't add complexity and "must unwind cleanly" type logic > > here where it's not needed at all. That just hurts my sensibilities for > > why I made the API the way it is in the first place :) > > I don't see the code much complex, it is pretty much boilerplate code and > this is > why this c&p error had happened. > So this patch just fixes a c&p error in an error message and if we wish to > change > the behavior to match your vision > I suggest to doing it another patch set... maybe even sweeping the whole > kernel.
Greg, are you merging this patch? What is your final say? Thanks Tomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
