On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:34:19 +0100 Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 01:58:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:44:53 +0100 > > Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hmmm, I don't understand. Which is the bug, having a sysfs file > > > creation fail or going on if it happens? > > > > Probably the former, probably the latter. > > > > There may be situations in which we want do to "create this sysfs file if > > it doesn't already exist", but I'm not aware of any such. > > > > Generally speaking, if sysfs file creation went wrong, it's due to a bug. > > The result is that the driver isn't working as intended: tunables or > > instrumentation which it is designed to make available are not present. We > > want to know about that bug asap so we can get it fixed. > > Hmmm, then why don't you just drop the return value from the creation > function and BUG() in there is something went wrong. That would allow > for better error messages too. And (ultimately) make the function return void. Yes, that's probably a valid approach - we've discussed it before but nobody has taken it further. - 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/