Return-path: Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.189]:55968 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751010AbXCZKej (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:34:39 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so2703784muf for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:34:33 +0200 To: Andrew Morton Cc: Cornelia Huck , Larry Finger , Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Monakhov Dmitriy Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 Message-ID: <20070326103432.GB18799@zenigma> References: <20070321202225.GN10459@waste.org> <20070321233917.0393dfd1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070322123508.3785fd30@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <4602752A.5050109@lwfinger.net> <20070322181019.62fe78ed@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <4602D137.4060402@lwfinger.net> <20070323111029.4089ccfb@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070323210618.6a41f5da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070326110949.5301a571@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070326012232.0f0b9e09.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070326012232.0f0b9e09.akpm@linux-foundation.org> From: Eric Rannaud Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > If so, do you think I should labour on with > > > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I > > > drop the lot? (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not > > > sure which patch(es) need to be dropped). > > > > This depends on what semantics uevent returning an error code should > > have. The firmware code was using it to suppress uevents, but > > uevent_suppress is a better idea now. So if we want uevent returning != > > 0 to imply "something really bad happened", all uevent functions have > > to be audited and those that work like firmware_uevent have to be > > converted to uevent_suppress. This would be cleaner, but I'm not sure > > it's worth the work. > > We're generally struggling to stay alive amongst all the bugs at present - > I'll drop all those patches. My mistake, I wrote the guilty patch uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch assuming it was safe to treat the return value as an error code, since several uevent functions returns things like -ENOMEM. Should I rework the patch as Cornelia suggests and resubmit later, when things have settled down a little? Thanks.