[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52712EE9.9050402@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:08:09 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12-rc7] KVM: Fix modprobe failure for kvm_intel/kvm_amd
Il 30/10/2013 16:59, Greg KH ha scritto:
>> > Even if it is okay to exit and not create the files (and I think it's a
>> > bit surprising), I'd like at least a printk to signal what's happening.
>> > But there should be no reason for debugfs directory creation to fail in
>> > the end, except for basic mistakes such as the one that Tim reported, so
>> > I think it's better to report the failure.
> Creation will "fail" if debugfs is not enabled, so spiting out printk
> messages in that case is not a good idea.
Interestingly, if debugfs is not enabled we are already returning an
error-valued pointer:
static inline struct dentry *debugfs_create_dir(const char *name,
struct dentry *parent)
{
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
}
which would oops a lot of the current callers. Very few places use the
currently correct idiom
if (IS_ERR(root) || !root)
but it's very ugly... Perhaps debugfs_create_dir *should* return an
error-valued pointer after all.
Paolo
--
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