On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:55:05AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 11:53 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 4/18/20 11:50 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:41:09AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
@@ -294,11 +295,11 @@ void dev_coredumpm(struct device *dev, s
if (sysfs_create_link(&devcd->devcd_dev.kobj, &dev->kobj, "failing_device"))
/* nothing - symlink will be missing */;
do_empty(); /* nothing - symlink will be missing */if (sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &devcd->devcd_dev.kobj, "devcoredump"))
/* nothing - symlink will be missing */;
do_empty(); /* nothing - symlink will be missing */INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&devcd->del_wk, devcd_del); schedule_delayed_work(&devcd->del_wk, DEVCD_TIMEOUT);
Could just remove the 'if's?
- sysfs_create_link(&devcd->devcd_dev.kobj, &dev->kobj,
"failing_device");OK.
sysfs_create_link is __must_check
Oh, I missed the declaration -- I just saw the definition. This is a situation where __must_check hurts us and it should be removed.
Or this code is wrong and it should be
WARN(sysfs_create_link(&devcd->devcd_dev.kobj, &dev->kobj, "failing_device");
like drivers/pci/controller/vmd.c and drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c
Either way, the do_empty() construct feels like the wrong way of covering up the warning.