[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d36c1801-a217-519d-0bcc-7716cb16360a@web.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:45:03 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>, Wang Ming <machel@...o.com>,
opensource.kernel@...o.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Minjie Du <duminjie@...o.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: bonding: Remove error checking for
debugfs_create_dir()
> > It is expected that most callers should _ignore_ the errors
> > return by debugfs_create_dir() in bond_debug_reregister().
>
> Why should the error be ignored? It's not a fatal error, in the
> sense that the bond itself should be unregistered, but I'm not sure why
> an error message that the debugfs registration failed is undesirable.
Would you like to insist on the possibility to get informed anyhow
about a bonding debugfs directory creation failure?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc1/source/drivers/net/bonding/bond_debugfs.c#L87
> Also, the code in question is in bond_create_debugfs(), not
> bond_debug_reregister().
Is it interesting how improvable change descriptions are presented?
> The diff below looks a bit odd in that the
> context line lists _reregister, but that's not the function being
> changed.
I do also not see the mentioned identifier in an update candidate.
> I thought the v1 patch was fine.
This change approach (from 2023-07-13) looked mostly appropriate.
[PATCH net v1] net:bonding:Fix error checking for debugfs_create_dir
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230713033607.12804-1-machel@vivo.com/
Will the review attention grow for any remaining concerns or ideas?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists