From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kay Sievers <Kay.Sievers@vrfy.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix error handling in bus_add_device
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:42:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <428AFFEF.7010204@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050518073230.GA12155@kroah.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2111 bytes --]
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:19:37AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>Greg KH wrote:
>>>On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:19:24PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>>Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>>this patch fixes the error handling in bus_add_device() and
>>>>device_attach(). Previously it was 'interesting'.
>>>>And totally confusing to boot.
>>>I agree, that's why it has been rewritten in the -mm tree :)
>>>
>>>Anyway, your patch doesn't take into account that device_attach()'s
>>>return value is tested in the bus_rescan_devices_helper(), so if you
>>>change the return value, that also needs to be changed.
>>>
>>>But even in the -mm tree, the bus_add_devices() function has not had the
>>>error handling added to it that you provided, is there any devices that
>>>you are seeing that need this?
>>>
>>Not yet :-)
>>
>>I'm just doing some cleanups here which me and Kay Sievers will be
>>exploiting in the near future.
>>My main point is:
>>either we do an error check in bus_add_device and return a proper
>>status, or we don't and fix bus_add_device to be of type 'void'.
>>And as some functions called by bus_add_device may fail I thought it
>>reasonable to evaluate the return status properly.
>>Unless you tell me that bus_add_device is a fire-and-forget procedure
>>and we don't care at all for any failures. But then we should at least
>>set the type of bus_add_device() to 'void'.
>>You're the maintainer, you have to decide :-).
>>I don't care either way, I just want to have it consistent.
>>
>>But you're correct about the bus_rescan_devices_helper. Fixed and new
>>patch attached.
>
> Ok, I agree that we should have error checks in there. Now, could you
> make your patch against the latest -mm tree instead due to all of the
> changes involved in that area in my trees? That way I can apply it :)
>
Whee, innovations.
Which your patches to -mm the whole thing is even easier and now
actually looks quite sane.
New patch attached.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke hare@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG S390 & zSeries
Maxfeldstraße 5 +49 911 74053 688
90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de
[-- Attachment #2: driver-core-bus_add_device-error-handling --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1857 bytes --]
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Fix error handling in bus_add_device()
The error handling in bus_add_device() and device_attach() is simply
non-existing. This patch propagates any error from device_attach to
the upper layers to allow for a proper recovery.
--- linux-2.6.12-rc4-mm2/drivers/base/bus.c.orig 2005-05-18 10:26:50.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc4-mm2/drivers/base/bus.c 2005-05-18 10:36:08.000000000 +0200
@@ -270,11 +270,14 @@ int bus_add_device(struct device * dev)
if (bus) {
pr_debug("bus %s: add device %s\n", bus->name, dev->bus_id);
- device_attach(dev);
+ error = device_attach(dev);
klist_add_tail(&bus->klist_devices, &dev->knode_bus);
- device_add_attrs(bus, dev);
- sysfs_create_link(&bus->devices.kobj, &dev->kobj, dev->bus_id);
- sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &dev->bus->subsys.kset.kobj, "bus");
+ if (error >= 0)
+ error = device_add_attrs(bus, dev);
+ if (!error) {
+ sysfs_create_link(&bus->devices.kobj, &dev->kobj, dev->bus_id);
+ sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &dev->bus->subsys.kset.kobj, "bus");
+ }
}
return error;
}
@@ -394,7 +397,7 @@ static int bus_rescan_devices_helper(str
{
int *count = data;
- if (!dev->driver && device_attach(dev))
+ if (!dev->driver && (device_attach(dev) > 0))
(*count)++;
return 0;
--- linux-2.6.12-rc4-mm2/drivers/base/dd.c.orig 2005-05-18 10:29:27.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc4-mm2/drivers/base/dd.c 2005-05-18 10:39:45.000000000 +0200
@@ -119,7 +119,8 @@ static int __device_attach(struct device
* driver_probe_device() for each pair. If a compatible
* pair is found, break out and return.
*
- * Returns 1 if the device was bound to a driver; 0 otherwise.
+ * Returns 1 if the device was bound to a driver;
+ * 0 if no matching device was found; error code otherwise.
*/
int device_attach(struct device * dev)
{
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-18 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-12 14:19 [PATCH] fix error handling in bus_add_device Hannes Reinecke
2005-05-18 5:56 ` Greg KH
2005-05-18 7:19 ` Hannes Reinecke
2005-05-18 7:32 ` Greg KH
2005-05-18 8:42 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=428AFFEF.7010204@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=Kay.Sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox