>>-     if (!hotplug_path [0])
>>-             return;
>>-     if (in_interrupt ()) {
>>-             dbg ("In_interrupt");
>>-             return;
>>-     }
>>-     if (!current->fs->root) {
>>-             /* statically linked USB is initted rather early */
>>-             dbg ("call_policy %s, num %d -- no FS yet", verb, dev->devnum);
>>-             return;
>>-     }
> 
> Why take out these checks?  Aren't they good to keep around?

Except for the in_interrupt() they're duplicated in lower levels.
So they're still around, no point in duplicating.

The in_interrupt() requirements are typically pushed to
documentation, and in this case we know that it's always
called from a thread context anyway.  Again, no point.


>>-              * everything needs a smart agent and usbfs; or can rely on
>>+              * otherwise needs a smart agent and usbfs; or can rely on
> 
> Hm, this still doesn't look any clearer :)

But at least it's correct ... not everything needs usbfs. :)


>>-     dbg ("kusbd: %s %s %d", argv [0], verb, dev->devnum);
>>-     value = call_usermodehelper (argv [0], argv, envp);
>>+     dbg ("%s %s %d", argv [0], verb, dev->devnum);
>>+     (void) call_usermodehelper (argv [0], argv, envp);
>>      kfree (buf);
>>      kfree (envp);
>>-     if (value != 0)
>>-             dbg ("kusbd policy returned 0x%x", value);
> 
> 
> Why throw away the return value?

Consistency (no other hotplug invocation does anything with
it) and utility (nothing useful to be done with such issues).
Before keventd was added, there was at least the possibility
of doing something useful given such faults ... no longer.

- Dave




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel

Reply via email to