On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 08:53:06AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Sorry, I read the code wrong. This function is just a handler. The
caller, dlm_send_begin_reco_message(), expects the positive EAGAIN as
a non-error case.
Well, at minimum the error code usage is very confused. The
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
@@ -3730,7 +3730,7 @@ tracing_stats_read(struct file *filp, char __user
*ubuf,
s = kmalloc(sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!s)
- return ENOMEM;
+ return -ENOMEM;
trace_seq_init(s);
lol,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
@@ -3730,7 +3730,7 @@ tracing_stats_read(struct file *filp, char __user
*ubuf,
s = kmalloc(sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!s)
- return ENOMEM;
+
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Andy, can we have a checkpatch rule please?
Note, that will upset creative uses of error codes i guess, such as
fs/xfs/.
But yeah, +1 from me too.
Ob'post'mortem - looked for similar patterns in the kernel and there's
quite a few bugs
roel kluin wrote:
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Andy, can we have a checkpatch rule please?
Note, that will upset creative uses of error codes i guess, such as
fs/xfs/.
But yeah, +1 from me too.
Ob'post'mortem - looked for similar patterns in the kernel and there's
quite
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:17:58AM -0800, Joel Becker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:10:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
5 out of 8 places look buggy - i.e. more than 60% - a checkpatch warning
would avoid real bugs here. (even ignoring the cleanliness effects of
using proper error
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:10:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
5 out of 8 places look buggy - i.e. more than 60% - a checkpatch warning
would avoid real bugs here. (even ignoring the cleanliness effects of
using proper error propagation)
Cc:-ed affected maintainers. The rightmost column are
* Joel Becker joel.bec...@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:17:58AM -0800, Joel Becker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:10:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
5 out of 8 places look buggy - i.e. more than 60% - a checkpatch warning
would avoid real bugs here. (even ignoring the
