On Jul 19, 2007, at 14:04:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My overall goal is killing useless warnings that continually
obscure real ones.
Precisely, the goal should be to make must_check (and similar
things) war
> Not necessarily as simple as that -- you need to make sure you don't
> pass something bogus to a sysfs_remove_blah() function at
> unregister/unload time, if sysfs_create_blah() failed.
>
> Certainly sysfs_foo() failure is often ignorable in the sense that you
> want the driver to keep loadi
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Thus, we have two choices here:
- The simple one: sysfs_create_blah() displays a warning when it fails
and has no must_check
- The one that adds code everywhere (the current one):
sysfs_create_blah() returns an error, has much_check, and thus all
callers like I d
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 20:34 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > More people *should* generally ask themselves: "was the warning worth it?"
> > and then, if the answer is "no", they shouldn't add code, they should
> > remove the thing that causes the
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More people *should* generally ask themselves: "was the warning worth it?"
> and then, if the answer is "no", they shouldn't add code, they should
> remove the thing that causes the warning in the first place.
Sure. If a routine uses must_check yet i
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I think "must_check" is an abomination. It makes the callee dictate what
the caller has to do, but dammit, if the callee really "knows" its errors
are that serious, it should damn well handle them itself.
The whole "sysfs_create_file()" thing is an example of that. If
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My overall goal is killing useless warnings
> > that continually obscure real ones.
>
> Precisely, the goal should be to make must_check (and similar things)
> warn only in real cases.
.. the problem
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >
> > We absolutely NEVER add things like "must_check" unless not checking
> > causes a real and obvious SECURITY ISSUE.
>
> Oh, come on, almost every kernel bug is a potential security issue.
Sure. And adding unnecessary checking that doesn't
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My overall goal is killing useless warnings
> that continually obscure real ones.
Precisely, the goal should be to make must_check (and similar things)
warn only in real cases.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So let's make a new rule:
>
> We absolutely NEVER add things like "must_check" unless not checking
> causes a real and obvious SECURITY ISSUE.
Oh, come on, almost every kernel bug is a potential security issue.
IMHO, if the function can only fail
Linus Torvalds wrote:
So let's make a new rule:
We absolutely NEVER add things like "must_check" unless not checking
causes a real and obvious SECURITY ISSUE.
And we absolutely *never* add crap like "deprecated", where the only
point of the warning is to effectively hide *real* probl
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 18:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Now, we can talk about making those sysfs core functions generate warnings
> > themselves, and we can talk about generating new wrappers around them which
> > generate warnings and which return void, then migrating code over to use
> > th
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> The only reason why the sysfs creation would fail is a kernel bug,
> so the consequence of your proposal is in fact unfixed kernel bugs.
Well, the thing is, I suspect we have created way more bugs by having that
stupid "you must check the return va
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:19:05 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general, I share paulus point of view here that forcing us to test
> all those result code from sysfs file creation functions is just a major
> PITA and adds bloat all over the kernel. There are many many cas
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Please pull from 'warnings' branch of
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/misc-2.6.git warnings
>
> to receive the following updates:
Quite frankly, I think a *lot* better fix for warnings would be to remove
those damn broken "must
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 20:05 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 July 2007 01:55:04 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> Please pull from 'warnings' branch of
> >> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/misc-2.6.git warnings
> >>
> >> to receive the following updates:
>
Please pull from 'warnings' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/misc-2.6.git warnings
to receive the following updates:
drivers/video/aty/radeon_base.c | 23 ++-
include/asm-x86_64/tlbflush.h |6 +-
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 d
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2007 01:55:04 Jeff Garzik wrote:
Please pull from 'warnings' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/misc-2.6.git warnings
to receive the following updates:
drivers/video/aty/radeon_base.c | 23 ++-
include/asm-
On Thursday 19 July 2007 01:55:04 Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Please pull from 'warnings' branch of
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/misc-2.6.git warnings
>
> to receive the following updates:
>
> drivers/video/aty/radeon_base.c | 23 ++-
> include/asm-x86_
19 matches
Mail list logo
