[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131209111900.GC6562@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 03:19:00 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ethan Zhao <ethan.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: konrad.wilk@...cle.com, raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xen/debugfs: Check debugfs initialization before
using it
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:56:52PM +0800, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> From: "ethan.zhao" <ethan.kernel@...il.com>
>
> Should check debugfs initialization with debugfs_initialized() before using it,
> Because if it isn't initialized, the return value of fake debugfs_create_dir() etc
> functions would be ERR_PTR(-ENODEV), checking with NULL will not work.
>
> V3: add warning message when debugfs not configured or disabled.
That's not what this patch does...
> Signed-off-by: ethan.zhao <ethan.kernel@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/xen/debugfs.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/debugfs.c b/arch/x86/xen/debugfs.c
> index c8377fb..85c0e0e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/debugfs.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/debugfs.c
> @@ -9,12 +9,18 @@ static struct dentry *d_xen_debug;
>
> struct dentry * __init xen_init_debugfs(void)
> {
> + if (!debugfs_initialized()) {
> + d_xen_debug = NULL;
> + goto nodebugfs;
> + }
Again, why is this even needed?
What problem in the existing code are you trying to solve?
--
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