Hi Greg, >> >Try this instead: >> > if (!de) >> > return -ENOMEM; >> > if ((IS_ERR(de)) && (PTR_ERR(de) != -ENODEV)) >> > return PTR_ERR(de); >> > return 0; >> > >> >That should cover everything properly, right? >> >> In case memory could not be allocated, why does not securityfs_*() return >> ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) then? (I think, that's the quintessential question after >> all. And thanks for giving an example what to do in the ENODEV case.) > >Actually, in reading the code (which might have helped in the first >place), we can never return NULL if securityfs is enabled.
So we're back to the confusing comment ;-) >So you can just drop that first check entirely. > >Which makes me wonder, it might be easier to just return NULL if >securityfs is not enabled in the kernel, as long as no one checks that >improperly... I have actually had a look into the tree who even uses securityfs. The most prominent case are LSMs. They need CONFIG_SECURITY=y anyway, so securityfs is always enabled for those. What remains seems to be tpm_bios.c. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
