> sysfs_create_group() and remove_group() handles this just fine right
> now. Or it should, if not, please let me know and I'll fix it.
Ok, I didn't know about these. I'll have a look. Thanks !
> As for the bin_file stuff, those are very rare. And I'll gladly take
> patches that keep bad thing
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:31:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:16:13 +1100
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Beware that sysfs_remove_bin_file() will complain loudly if you later
> > > attempt to delete that file that was never created.
> >
> > T
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:16:13 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Beware that sysfs_remove_bin_file() will complain loudly if you later
> > attempt to delete that file that was never created.
>
> That's another problem... what is a driver that creates 15 files
> supposed to
> Beware that sysfs_remove_bin_file() will complain loudly if you later
> attempt to delete that file that was never created.
That's another problem... what is a driver that creates 15 files
supposed to do ? Have 15 booleans to remember which files where
successfully created and then test all of
Ben,
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:55:31 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > And (ultimately) make the function return void.
> >
> > Yes, that's probably a valid approach - we've discussed it before but
> > nobody has
> > taken it further.
>
> I would have preferred that approach (with a WARN_ON
Andrew Morton wrote:
Generally speaking, if sysfs file creation went wrong, it's due to a bug.
The result is that the driver isn't working as intended: tunables or
instrumentation which it is designed to make available are not present. We
want to know about that bug asap so we can get it fixed
> And (ultimately) make the function return void.
>
> Yes, that's probably a valid approach - we've discussed it before but nobody
> has
> taken it further.
I would have preferred that approach (with a WARN_ON rather than a BUG
though). On the other hand that would make it slightly harder for t
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:34:19 +0100
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 01:58:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:44:53 +0100
> > Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmmm, I don't understand. Which is the bug, having a sysfs fil
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 01:58:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:44:53 +0100
> Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmmm, I don't understand. Which is the bug, having a sysfs file
> > creation fail or going on if it happens?
>
> Probably the former, probably the l
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:44:53 +0100
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:38:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (a
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:38:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a
> > console to be displayed at all on many machines) just because for some
>
> > Why would I prevent the framebuffer from initializing (and thus a
> > console to be displayed at all on many machines) just because for some
> > reason, I couldn't create a pair of EDID files in sysfs that are not
> > even very useful anymore ?
>
> Because there's a bug in your kernel. We do
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 22:22 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 06:59:10AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > I'd really like to have some kind of macro or attribute or whatever I
> > can put on a function call to say that I'm purposefully ignoring the
> > error. Is the
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:59:10 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 16:56 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
> > Check for error on radeonfb device sysfs files creation. This fixes the
> > following warnings:
>
> (Moving to LKML as I think that's a generic issu
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 06:59:10AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I'd really like to have some kind of macro or attribute or whatever I
> can put on a function call to say that I'm purposefully ignoring the
> error. Is there some gcc magic that can do that ?
(void)bla()?
Cheers,
Muli
-
T
15 matches
Mail list logo
