From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org (pentafluge.infradead.org [213.146.154.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49813DDEC4 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:24:08 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:28:36 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow sysfs_remove_group() to be called on non-added groups Message-ID: <20071023032836.GC7486@kroah.com> References: <096fae99bd9797c5484ed8f4b87b82e58737cdc0.1189657514.git.michael@ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 12:02:39PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On 9/13/07, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > It would be nice to be able to do: > > > > for_each_thing(thing) { > > error = sysfs_create_group(&thing->kobj, attrs); > > if (error) { > > for_each_thing(thing) > > sysfs_remove_group(&thing->kobj, attrs); > > return error; > > } > > } > > > > But there's a BUG_ON() in sysfs_remove_group() which hits if the attributes > > were never added. > > > > As discussed here ... > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/cbe-oss-dev/2007-July/002774.html > > > > .. we should just return in that case instead of BUG'ing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman > > --- > > fs/sysfs/group.c | 3 ++- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/sysfs/group.c b/fs/sysfs/group.c > > index f318b73..a256775 100644 > > --- a/fs/sysfs/group.c > > +++ b/fs/sysfs/group.c > > @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ void sysfs_remove_group(struct kobject * kobj, > > > > if (grp->name) { > > sd = sysfs_get_dirent(dir_sd, grp->name); > > - BUG_ON(!sd); > > + if (!sd) > > + return; > > } else > > sd = sysfs_get(dir_sd); > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > I didn't see this in your series, any objections? AFAICT it still applies. Hm, I think I just missed it, care to forward it to me "clean" again? thanks, greg k-h