On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:26:56 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > * Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ... but back then I didn't feel like complicating an error recovery ABI for > > the > > needs of the 1%, robust error handling is all about simplicity: if it's not > > simple, tools won't use it. > > And note that it needs to be 'simple' in two places for usage to grow > naturally: > > - the usage site in the kernel > - the tooling side that recovers the information. > > That's why I think that such a form: > > return err_str(-EINVAL, "x86/perf: CPU does not support precise > sampling"); > > is obviously simple on the kernel side as it returns -EINVAL, and is very > simple > on the tooling side as well, if we are allowed to extend prctl(). > Is this whole thing overkill? As far as I can see, the problem which is being addressed only occurs in a couple of places (perf, wifi netlink handling) and could be addressed with some local pr_debug statements. ie, #define err_str(e, s) ({ if (debugging) pr_debug("%s:%d: error %d (%s)", __FILE__, __LINE__, e, s); e; }) (And I suppose that if this is later deemed inadequate, err_str() could be made more fancy). IOW, do we really need some grand kernel-wide infrastructural thing to adequately address this problem? -- 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/
