From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([2a01:4f8:191:4433::2] helo=sipsolutions.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mk2KA-00GByU-6e for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:56:27 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 25/42] arch/um: Check notifier registration return value From: Johannes Berg Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 11:56:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20211108101157.15189-1-bp@alien8.de> <20211108101157.15189-26-bp@alien8.de> <129beb0a860102ba7970ab7497a5a83fe2041e68.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Borislav Petkov Cc: LKML , linux-um@lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 11:48 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 11:23:59AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > Maybe it should just return it? I don't see how this is ever possible, > > since it's an initcall. > > If it would return it, you'd see the warning only when booting with > "initcall_debug", I believe. Oh, I thought we'd fail :) > I can do that if it is preferred... > No strong opinion either way. johannes _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um