Andrew Morton wrote:
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
Andrew Morton wrote:
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
> 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.
I would have preferred that approach (with a WARN_ON rather than a BUG
though). On the other hand that would make it slightly harder for
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
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
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:44:53 +0100
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:38:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:38:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a
> > console to be displayed at all on many machines) just because for some
>
> > Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a
> > console to be displayed at all on many machines) just because for some
> > reason, I couldn't create a pair of EDID files in sysfs that are not
> > even very useful anymore ?
>
> Because there's a bug in your kernel. We
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 22:22 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 06:59:10AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > I'd really like to have some kind of macro or attribute or whatever I
> > can put on a function call to say that I'm purposefully ignoring the
> > error. Is
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 16:56 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> > Check for error on radeonfb device sysfs files creation. This fixes the
> > following warnings:
>
> (Moving to LKML as I think that's a generic
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 06:59:10AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I'd really like to have some kind of macro or attribute or whatever I
> can put on a function call to say that I'm purposefully ignoring the
> error. Is there some gcc magic that can do that ?
(void)bla()?
Cheers,
Muli
-
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 16:56 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Check for error on radeonfb device sysfs files creation. This fixes the
> following warnings:
(Moving to LKML as I think that's a generic issue)
As usual with most of that crap about return values from
sysfs_create_file, I disagree.
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 16:56 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
Check for error on radeonfb device sysfs files creation. This fixes the
following warnings:
(Moving to LKML as I think that's a generic issue)
As usual with most of that crap about return values from
sysfs_create_file, I disagree.
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 06:59:10AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I'd really like to have some kind of macro or attribute or whatever I
can put on a function call to say that I'm purposefully ignoring the
error. Is there some gcc magic that can do that ?
(void)bla()?
Cheers,
Muli
-
To
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 16:56 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
Check for error on radeonfb device sysfs files creation. This fixes the
following warnings:
(Moving to LKML as I think that's a generic issue)
As
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 22:22 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 06:59:10AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I'd really like to have some kind of macro or attribute or whatever I
can put on a function call to say that I'm purposefully ignoring the
error. Is there some
Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a
console to be displayed at all on many machines) just because for some
reason, I couldn't create a pair of EDID files in sysfs that are not
even very useful anymore ?
Because there's a bug in your kernel. We don't hide
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:38:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a
console to be displayed at all on many machines) just because for some
reason,
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:44:53 +0100
Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:38:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a
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.
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
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.
I would have preferred that approach (with a WARN_ON rather than a BUG
though). On the other hand that would make it slightly harder for the
22 matches
Mail list logo
