[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211103170049.GA4108@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 18:00:49 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, axboe@...nel.dk,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
vishal.l.verma@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
ira.weiny@...el.com, richard@....at, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com,
vigneshr@...com, efremov@...ux.com, song@...nel.org,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, hare@...e.de, jack@...e.cz,
ming.lei@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] block: make __register_blkdev() return an
error
On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:44:53AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> Here's the thing, prober call a form of add_disk(), and so do we want
> to always ignore the errors on probe? If so we should document why that
> is sane then. I think this approach is a bit more sane though.
I suspect the right thing is to just kill of ->probe.
The only thing it supports is pre-devtmpfs, pre-udev semantics that
want to magically create disks when their pre-created device node
is accesses. But if we don't remove it, yes I think not reporting
the error is best. Just clean up whatever local resources were set
up in the ->probe method and let the open fail without the need of
passing on the actual error.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists