From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:53264 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751191AbZBPJPR (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:15:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] cfg80211: propagate -ENOMEM during regulatory_init() From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH In-Reply-To: <43e72e890902160109i386d78bydd36f182ed3e6dcd@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20090216_101014_517565_73E5101A) References: <1234589627-16977-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1234589627-16977-7-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1234695674.4219.50.camel@johannes.local> <43e72e890902160018r40d8c694qa1da55c9fa7ec376@mail.gmail.com> <1234774345.4219.106.camel@johannes.local> <43e72e890902160109i386d78bydd36f182ed3e6dcd@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20090216_101014_517565_73E5101A) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-b4/7ayp9B58GQKjm36mO" Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:15:09 +0100 Message-Id: <1234775709.4219.111.camel@johannes.local> (sfid-20090216_101521_714935_F94BCAE5) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-b4/7ayp9B58GQKjm36mO Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 01:09 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > We're strictly checking just for ENOMEMs which if you are getting will > get you into problems anyway so might as well propagate that > information. >=20 > kobject_uevent_env() can fail for a short set of other non-memory > related issues and those are the cases we are ignoring here including > the possible call to call_usermodehelper() during early boot (which > I'm not even sure how likely it is, Greg?). >=20 > >, and then how is it different from crda > > failing in userspace to warrant stopping cfg80211 from moving on? >=20 > This is based on the premise that we are simply bailing out for all > conditions on the creation of a udev event but that is not the case -- > prior to this we were disregarding -ENOMEMs which I do not believe is > correct. Why wouldn't you want to propagate that? Dunno, it just seems pointless to check for an error condition that covers so few of the possible ways to fail here. johannes --=-b4/7ayp9B58GQKjm36mO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJJmS6aAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYkPMP+gLmxU5HId6R0HxxilDdQUzO lkn1fl5OAcszIwKs9puawjFguGz3fCkAhLPDtTF6OTExno6JLmzug4K3N+q/xCW6 Hpk2kfI/mdZcINQEVrzA6CxqzgXt/NgafpvQDMNsN+AaBwvUTTFLQRBMhO+Nqj7Z Q2mOuR3XuaEm/T94kx/QBpKyteGElCpUD8+AjrxFNtoGQDS/OkBCyZ3LRrjUMaEX YkvKlX3pb2Vn/isD4h/4Sz/wFzICn6aFGJ1Meo3kF03rcWS8h5X9NwJ+wjX2Nj4n Z2Q+J9VPTo5m7kF9siKCdzraAuxQqt92H/OQSiTz2+r81Ts2dON0yuH5NCYLqi30 tamzP45UTXQHKDv2FdFhV2RfnLNlXjXyjzLolZ7KAUMHt0zkAr+4bEneu0jsZwu5 FXDMTVALxJu9a9slfYnQuX928ASq8v0ekpf1owwdOvW19zeZzB30UNwtc2NhGhiz Yol917T1LT6h9gnkddmtq7iGm1ip9yRV/qH1+TVshIrRE0kObQ5BP8bwnLHkKOzZ 6C15gTB13yGO+kphhmUp+K399vrd0hPl9Pk39tGq1O0YLHoQ4SV3XHN91uoalaaB B/5rqaODhqN249VLjeV4UQTIg2E3TBicHtTTKKWezCJRBt5KoSS6rbh7CXif5k4i V/XwFQMfuCG2u6/hTzBt =mmJ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-b4/7ayp9B58GQKjm36mO--