From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:24:39 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 00/42] notifiers: Return an error when callback is already registered Message-ID: References: <20211108101157.15189-1-bp@alien8.de> <20211108101924.15759-1-bp@alien8.de> <20211108141703.GB1666297@rowland.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211108141703.GB1666297@rowland.harvard.edu> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: Alan Stern Cc: LKML , Arnd Bergmann , Ayush Sawal , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rohit Maheshwari , Steven Rostedt , Vinay Kumar Yadav , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, rcu@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:17:03AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > What reason is there for moving the check into the callers? It seems > like pointless churn. Why not add the error return code, change the > WARN to pr_warn, and leave the callers as they are? Wouldn't that end > up having exactly the same effect? > > For that matter, what sort of remedial action can a caller take if the > return code is -EEXIST? Is there any point in forcing callers to check > the return code if they can't do anything about it? See my reply to Geert from just now: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YYkyUEqcsOwQMb1S@zn.tnic I guess I can add another indirection to notifier_chain_register() and avoid touching all the call sites. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um