Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:19:24PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>Hi Greg,
>>
>>this patch fixes the error handling in bus_add_device() and
>>device_attach(). Previously it was 'interesting'.
>>And totally confusing to boot.
> 
> I agree, that's why it has been rewritten in the -mm tree :)
> 
> Anyway, your patch doesn't take into account that device_attach()'s
> return value is tested in the bus_rescan_devices_helper(), so if you
> change the return value, that also needs to be changed.
> 
> But even in the -mm tree, the bus_add_devices() function has not had the
> error handling added to it that you provided, is there any devices that
> you are seeing that need this?
> 
Not yet :-)

I'm just doing some cleanups here which me and Kay Sievers will be
exploiting in the near future.
My main point is:
either we do an error check in bus_add_device and return a proper
status, or we don't and fix bus_add_device to be of type 'void'.
And as some functions called by bus_add_device may fail I thought it
reasonable to evaluate the return status properly.
Unless you tell me that bus_add_device is a fire-and-forget procedure
and we don't care at all for any failures. But then we should at least
set the type of bus_add_device() to 'void'.
You're the maintainer, you have to decide :-).
I don't care either way, I just want to have it consistent.

But you're correct about the bus_rescan_devices_helper. Fixed and new
patch attached.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke			hare@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG				S390 & zSeries
Maxfeldstraße 5				+49 911 74053 688
90409 Nürnberg				http://www.suse.de