From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752315AbbFRWsg (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:48:36 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:65030 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750997AbbFRWs3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:48:29 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,641,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="713580790" Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:48:28 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Andi Kleen , peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, perf, uncore: Don't make MSR uncore depend on PCI uncore Message-ID: <20150618224828.GP25760@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <1434660362-4083-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1434660362-4083-4-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > So now we return success, if nothing is there or stuff failed? Right. > > One possible solution is to split the initcall and have one > for uncore_pci and one for uncode_msr, but that does not work well if > you want to make it a module. > > But we should at least have some indication, what worked and what went > wrong instead of unconditionally returning success. Nobody uses the return value for builtin drivers (short of one debug printk). It would not load the module, but right now we don't have a module. Generally it's a bad idea to print something when a probe doesn't work, as that just leads to lots of dmesg spam for large monolithic kernels. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only