On 07/25/2013 02:03 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 15:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:24 +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>> For an extern function, if the performance is not sensible, better to >>> have the return value which can indicate the failure with the negative >>> number. >> >> The return value is meaningless. >> >> We don't have a good way to handle it. It has no defined semantics. What >> does "failure" means in that case ? Nothing ! >> >> So just remove it. > > Note: If you want to create a concept of smp_ops->probe() failing, then > not only you need to check all the implementations, but *also* add > something sensible to do when it fails ... such as disabling bringup of > CPUs. >
Hmm... if critical, use BUG(), else (none critical), just print a warning message ? > In this case however, we have put the burden of doing whatever makes > sense in the probe() function itself. If can adjust the possible map if > it fails. > Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I guss your meaning is: "it can be fail in internal implementation, but has no effect with the final result to caller", is it correct ? If what I understand is correct, it needn't let caller know about it. Thanks. -- Chen Gang _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
