On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:56:08 -0700, Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > IIRC, Al recently vetoed a similar patch. As far as I'm concerned, with > > > the correct return values, the patch then looks fine to me. > > > > We need some kind of check concerning the kobject to avoid mysterious > > errors (especially checking for the failed kobject_add() is needed). > > Whether we want just to inform the user of the failure instead of > > failing the function is another question. > > What are you suggesting? I'd love to make the behaviour consistent everywhere > (and am willing to go through things in order to make that happen), but what > is > the consistent behaviour that we'd want? I'd be fine with just propagating the error after cleanup (that is what for example the driver core usually does), but I don't know the surrounding code well enough for a definitive answer. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
