From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55422) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sc8rf-0005sJ-TV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:33:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sc8re-0004fL-3a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:33:03 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:53274) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sc8rd-0004es-TJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:33:02 -0400 Received: by pbbro12 with SMTP id ro12so9169192pbb.4 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 22:32:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Crosthwaite In-Reply-To: <1338940402-28502-5-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> References: <1338940402-28502-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <1338940402-28502-5-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:32:57 +1000 Message-ID: <1338960777.15420.27.camel@PetaLogix-ws2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/31] dt: temporarily disable subtree creation failure check List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: qemu-ppc Mailing List , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:52 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > Usually we want to know when creating a subtree fails. However, while > introducing this patch set we have to modify the device tree and some > times have the code to create a subtree in both the binary tree and > the dynamically created tree. > > So ignore failures about this for now and enable them once we got rid > of the binary device tree. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite > --- > device_tree.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/device_tree.c b/device_tree.c > index 8e9262c..6cbc5af 100644 > --- a/device_tree.c > +++ b/device_tree.c > @@ -203,11 +203,13 @@ int qemu_devtree_add_subnode(void *fdt, const char *name) > } > > retval = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, parent, basename); > +#if 0 > if (retval < 0) { > fprintf(stderr, "FDT: Failed to create subnode %s: %s\n", name, > fdt_strerror(retval)); > exit(1); > } > +#endif Doesnt this illustrate a failure in this functions return path in the first place?? Should this check be removed altogether and an error code returned to the caller? That way callers (like you platform under construction) can choose to ignore/act-on the error as appropriate. > > g_free(dupname); > return retval;