> Thanks for working on this important topic. > With pleasure :) > ...
> My feeling is that we could replace most of them by a log + return. > I did not think you would add a new macro. Why you chose this way? > This was meant to keep the code shorter, and imply to the reader that this > return is actually meant to be fatal > ... > > I would like to define a device health state that can be monitored from > > the side,and this will be an independant patch. > > You mean when a device become unusable? > Yes. Obviously not a simple issue, but essential for refraining from panic in the interrupt/data-path context, while allowing to detect and execute on the slow/management path. > > .. > > - Some previously panicing void functions where changed to return a > value, > > with callers modified accordingly. > > If the function is exposed to the application, I think it is an ABI change > and should follow the deprecation process. > In this case I thought there would be no actual change for the user as the transition is from returning void to int, and existing calls should continue to behave as before (except for not crashing) Following references to these functions, they all seem to comply to this rule, but I guess that's what reviews are for :) > > > /Arnon
