From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751787AbbKJDdg (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 22:33:36 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:35920 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750997AbbKJDdd (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 22:33:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 03:33:22 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Vishnu Pratap Singh Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com, minchan@kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, neilb@suse.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, tiwai@suse.de, hare@suse.de, ming.lei@canonical.com, jarod@redhat.com, tj@kernel.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, grundler@chromium.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, cpgs@samsung.com, vishu13285@gmail.com, pintu.k@samsung.com, rohit.kr@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] block/genhd.c: Add error handling Message-ID: <20151110033322.GB22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <437969438-9181-1-git-send-email-vishnu.ps@samsung.com> <1446812535-10567-1-git-send-email-vishnu.ps@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1446812535-10567-1-git-send-email-vishnu.ps@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:52:08PM +0530, Vishnu Pratap Singh wrote: Have you even tried to trigger the failure exits you've added? The more you've successfully set up, the _less_ your cleanup code ends up undoing; that simply can't be right. That aside, as soon as we'd done register_disk(), the damn thing is available for open(), so bailing out is _really_ not something for faint-hearted - it's essentially equivalent to removal of device under somebody who'd opened it and might've started IO, etc. Going there simply because some sysfs shite didn't get created doesn't look sane as far as I'm concerned... Especially since these failure exits are not going to be tested on a regular basis, so the amount of bitrot will be pretty high ;-/