[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070326012232.0f0b9e09.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:22:32 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: Larry Finger <larry.finger@...inger.net>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Monakhov Dmitriy <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:06:18 -0800,
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Would I be right in guessing that this was all triggered by
> > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch?
>
> Looks like it, since it passed the uevent failures to the upper layer.
OK, thanks.
> > If so, do you think I should labour on with
> > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I
> > drop the lot? (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not
> > sure which patch(es) need to be dropped).
>
> This depends on what semantics uevent returning an error code should
> have. The firmware code was using it to suppress uevents, but
> uevent_suppress is a better idea now. So if we want uevent returning !=
> 0 to imply "something really bad happened", all uevent functions have
> to be audited and those that work like firmware_uevent have to be
> converted to uevent_suppress. This would be cleaner, but I'm not sure
> it's worth the work.
We're generally struggling to stay alive amongst all the bugs at present -
I'll drop all those patches.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists