From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757396AbYEODPj (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 23:15:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753132AbYEODP1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 23:15:27 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36304 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751406AbYEODP0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 23:15:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 20:14:58 -0700 From: Greg KH To: David Miller Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, fubar@us.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sysfs: remove error messages for -EEXIST case Message-ID: <20080515031458.GA4423@kroah.com> References: <20080514170316.672f809d@extreme> <20080514181257.74fbb5aa@extreme> <20080514181603.411e834f@extreme> <20080514.182637.211478588.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080514.182637.211478588.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 06:26:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:16:03 -0700 > > > It is possible that the entry in sysfs already exists, one case of this is > > when a network device is renamed to bonding_masters. Anyway, in this case > > the proper error path is for device_rename to return an error code, not to > > generate bogus backtrace and errors. > > > > Also, to avoid possible races, the create link should be done before the > > remove link. This makes a device rename atomic operation like other renames. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > I definitely agree with this change. > > We have several cases where device names are user configurable, > yet the devices live in a directory which also has subdirectories > created by other subsystems. > > It's pointless to require the top-level guy to look for any > purge out any subdirectory cases, that's none of it's business. > > I realize the backtrace is useful for finding bugs, but in this > case it's definitely not appropriate. Fair enough, I have no objection to these. David, do you want me to take them through my tree? Or are they dependant on the network core changes as well? If so, I have no problem you taking them. Feel free to add a: Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman to them in that case. thanks, greg k-h