Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261840AbTJAAEc (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:04:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261850AbTJAAEb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:04:31 -0400 Received: from relay2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU ([169.229.60.28]:63697 "EHLO relay2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261840AbTJAACG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:02:06 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test6: more __init bugs From: "Robert T. Johnson" To: Corey Minyard Cc: Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <3F795001.9020104@mvista.com> References: <1064955628.5734.229.camel@dooby.cs.berkeley.edu> <3F795001.9020104@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 30 Sep 2003 17:02:03 -0700 Message-Id: <1064966523.5734.246.camel@dooby.cs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 02:42, Corey Minyard wrote: > This is not actually a bug, but it may be bad style (and thus could lead > to a bug). It is possible that something that uses IPMI can do some > IPMI things before IPMI is initialized. This can only happen during > initialization, though. Thus the check; once IPMI is initialized the > function will never be called. > > What's the opinion on this? Should I just force IPMI users to > initialize after IPMI? Thanks for looking at it. Would it be reasonable to fail if a client tries to use the ipmi interface before it is initialized? That would be a simple change, e.g.: if (!initialized) return -ENODEV; Best, Rob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/