[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ0pr1-2K5Emr+Sq4MqcBoYFDRVV9=HE9_A0U72SZrT1DFEy3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:38:18 +0200
From: Per Forlin <per.forlin@...aro.org>
To: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc: linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mmc: add module param to set fault injection attributes
On 14 September 2011 12:18, Per Forlin <per.forlin@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 14 September 2011 12:05, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> wrote:
>> 2011/9/14 Per Forlin <per.forlin@...aro.org>:
>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_MMC_REQUEST
>>> +
>>> +static DECLARE_FAULT_ATTR(fail_default_attr);
>>> +static char *fail_request;
>>
>> This is not used anymore and ...
>>
> Yes of course. Will remove it.
>
>>> +static int fail_mmc_request_param_set(const char *val,
>>> + const struct kernel_param *kp)
>>> +{
>>> + setup_fault_attr(&fail_default_attr, (char *) val);
I am thinking of returning failure here if setup_fault_attr() fails.
if (setup_fault_attr(&fail_default_attr, (char *) val) == 0)
return -EINVAL;
There will be a printk(KERN_WARNING "FAULT_INJECTION: failed to parse
arguments) it setup() fails. Is it too harsh to return failure?
Regards,
Per
--
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