Hello, Rusty.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:19:26AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Oh. Perhaps my sense of humour is miscalibrated.
Heh, prolly mine was. Sorry if I came off as aggressive.
> ===
> Subject: params: suppress unused variable error, warn once just in case code
> changes.
>
> It shou
Tejun Heo writes:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:57:24AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds writes:
>> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > At most, it could be a "WARN_ON_ONCE()". Maybe even just silently
>> > ignore the error. But BUG_ON()? Hell no.
>>
>> Yeah, in
Hi Tejun,
On Jun 10, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Louis.
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:05:21AM -0600, Louis Langholtz wrote:
>> The underlying code for sysfs_create_file does call WARN to warn about
>> any errors. So it's not like the code is totally silent anyway. Then the
>> un
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:57:24AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Linus Torvalds writes:
> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > At most, it could be a "WARN_ON_ONCE()". Maybe even just silently
> > ignore the error. But BUG_ON()? Hell no.
>
> Yeah, in practice it's already (1) p
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> At most, it could be a "WARN_ON_ONCE()". Maybe even just silently
> ignore the error. But BUG_ON()? Hell no.
Yeah, in practice it's already (1) paniced if we ran out of memory, or
(2) warned if we somehow tried to create
Hey, Louis.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:05:21AM -0600, Louis Langholtz wrote:
> The underlying code for sysfs_create_file does call WARN to warn about
> any errors. So it's not like the code is totally silent anyway. Then the
> unused
Not any errors. It triggers warning on missing ops and dup fi
On Jun 7, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 05:17:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> At most, it could be a "WARN_ON_ONCE()". Maybe even just silently
>> ignore the error. But BUG_ON()? Hell no.
>
> Yeah, WARN_ON_ONCE() is the right one...
>
> --
> tejun
On furthe
On Jun 7, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 05:54:30PM -0600, Louis Langholtz wrote:
>>> @@ -853,6 +853,7 @@ static void __init version_sysfs_builtin(void)
>>> mk = locate_module_kobject(vattr->modu
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 05:17:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> At most, it could be a "WARN_ON_ONCE()". Maybe even just silently
> ignore the error. But BUG_ON()? Hell no.
Yeah, WARN_ON_ONCE() is the right one. The short history here is that
sysfs_create_file() has __must_check on it which tri
While Rusty Russell wants the return value of sysfs_create_file
ignored, it's annotated '__must_check'. Tejun Heo made the annotaion
and suggests just using BUG_ON(). Meanwhile the compiler warns that
the 'err' variable is set but unused. This patch uses Tejun's
suggestion. This eliminates the warn
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 05:54:30PM -0600, Louis Langholtz wrote:
>> @@ -853,6 +853,7 @@ static void __init version_sysfs_builtin(void)
>> mk = locate_module_kobject(vattr->module_name);
>> if (mk) {
>>
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 05:54:30PM -0600, Louis Langholtz wrote:
> While Rusty Russell wants the return value of sysfs_create_file
> ignored, it's annotated '__must_check'. Tejun Heo made the annotaion
> and suggests just using BUG_ON(). Meanwhile the compiler warns that
> the 'err' variable is set
12 matches
Mail list logo
