On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 09:54:49AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 11:29 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > What useful information does this supply? The current assumption on > > > NULL return is -ENOMEM ... what's the interesting case where this > > > assumption is wrong? > > > > No idea. Sysfs just ignored all error codes and returns NULL right now. > > If it is indeed just ENOMEN then we have no issue. > > Well, I think when we have that justification, then we can decide on the > merits of the patch set.
There is one error patch in this function that is not due to a -ENOMEM error, but that will generate a huge message in the syslog describing what happened (created with the same name, or some other reason), so it would not make sense to duplicate another error message in the log by the caller code. So again, I don't see any use for this patch at all, except to cause problems (mix of maintainers applying the follow-on patches and others not). Everyone, please do not apply any of these patches that were sent to you in this series. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
