[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42d3a98ec468c14f21a8e37a53df9ee93010f571.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:20:41 +0200
From: Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig
<hch@....de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Sagi
Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nvme-pci: Print error message on failure in
nvme_probe
On Wed, 2025-10-22 at 09:48 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 08:26:34AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:29:07PM +0200, Gerd Bayer wrote:
> > > Add a new error message like
> > > nvme nvme0: probe failed on 2004:00:00.0 (result: -19)
> > > that makes failures to probe visible in the kernel log.
> >
> > Is that really a thing drivers are expected to do? If it is generally
> > usefull I'd expect it to be in the driver core.
>
> We have that already, dev_err_probe(), no need to create
> yet-another-version of that.
So I take this as an implict answer to the question, if drivers are
expected to do this or the driver core: Drivers.
Before learning about dev_err_probe() I was sampling a few drivers'
probe functions and got inconclusive results regarding their verbosity
regarding logging errors in probe. Interestingly, none of my samples
used dev_err_probe()...
While for most drivers it may be obvious that in most sytem
configurations it will not go unnoticed that e.g. the graphics
controller failed to probe - there may be other
components/configurations and a centralized error reporting e.g. in
local_pci_probe() would have its benefits. But then with so many
drivers already using dev_err_probe(), we don't want to report this
twice, now.
Thus, I'm going to convert my patch over for a v2.
Thanks,
Gerd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists