[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190321141343.GH29968@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:13:43 +0100
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/22] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink
interface
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:07:35PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > +static int __init ethnl_init(void)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = genl_register_family(ðtool_genl_family);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + panic("ethtool: could not register genetlink family\n");
>
> Panic seems a bit strong. Do we really want to kill the box because
> this fails?
When I switched CONFIG_ETHTOOL_NETLINK from tristate to bool, I checked
some other non-modular subsystems to see what they do on failed
initialization and each of them did handle it by panic() so I didn't
think about it too much and did the same.
Thinking about it now, if the family registration fails, the only entry
point to care about should be ethtool_notify() (I'll have to check more
carefully to be sure) so that adding a check there should be sufficient
to let everything work (except for the netlink interface, of course).
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists