Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 10:37:52 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:48:10 +1100 > > Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's a no-brainer. > > > > For non-developers, WARN_ON is a noop. > > Oh.. Rusty. The mailing list and bugzilla are *full* of WARN_ON reports > from

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:48:10 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 17:24:57 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:08:37 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:53:18 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > That

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 17:24:57 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:08:37 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:53:18 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > That risks killing previously-working setups. WARN_ON is sufficient. > > > > I disagree.

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 17:24:57 Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:08:37 +1100 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:53:18 Andrew Morton wrote: That risks killing previously-working setups. WARN_ON is sufficient. I disagree. WARN_ON is

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:48:10 +1100 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 05 February 2008 17:24:57 Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:08:37 +1100 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:53:18 Andrew Morton wrote: That risks killing

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 10:37:52 Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:48:10 +1100 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a no-brainer. For non-developers, WARN_ON is a noop. Oh.. Rusty. The mailing list and bugzilla are *full* of WARN_ON reports from testers. Your

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:53:18 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:43:31 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 02:42:15 Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this > > > patch... > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:43:31 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 02:42:15 Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If we want to

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 02:42:15 Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If we want to prevent > 0 returns, let's just BUG_ON(). Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:42:15 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... > Sorry, this is not an adequate description of why you think this patch should be merged. > --- > > kernel/module.c |6 ++ > 1

[PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's ->init() hook

One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- kernel/module.c |6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) --- a/kernel/module.c +++ b/kernel/module.c @@ -2171,6 +2171,12 @@ sys_init_module(void __user *umod,

[PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- kernel/module.c |6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) --- a/kernel/module.c +++ b/kernel/module.c @@ -2171,6 +2171,12 @@ sys_init_module(void __user *umod,

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:42:15 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... Sorry, this is not an adequate description of why you think this patch should be merged. --- kernel/module.c |6 ++ 1 file

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 02:42:15 Alexey Dobriyan wrote: One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we want to prevent 0 returns, let's just BUG_ON(). Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:43:31 +1100 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 05 February 2008 02:42:15 Alexey Dobriyan wrote: One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we want to prevent 0

Re: [PATCH] Whine about suspicious return values from module's -init() hook

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:53:18 Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:43:31 +1100 Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 05 February 2008 02:42:15 Alexey Dobriyan wrote: One head-scratching session could be noticeably shorter with this patch... Signed-off-by: