[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100801061934.GB2650@albatros>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:19:34 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Dinh Nguyen <Dinh.Nguyen@...escale.com>,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] usb: fsl_udc_core: check return value of
create_proc_read_entry()
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 21:17 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 09:38:20PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> > create_proc_read_entry() may fail, if so return -ENOMEM.
> >
>
> It can fail, but also we return NULL if procfs is disabled. I haven't
> looked at it very carefully, would this patch break the module if procfs
> was disabled?
Probably you are right, but many drivers in tree compare return value
with NULL. Some of them interpret this as error, some of them simply
call pr_warn("Hmm, I cannot create file in proc, strange..."). Maybe
there is more simplier way to check it without #ifdefs?
>
> The same applies to the similar patches in this set.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
--
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