Re: [Patch] proc: check error pointer returned by m_start()

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This is true, that commit changed the return value of m_start(),
> which will return an error pointer on failure, but Al forgot
> to check the error pointer in m_stop() which will be called
> when m_start() fails. This patches fixes it.

I did this slightly differently, and put the check in m_stop()
instead, because I felt that matched the logic of m_start, while
vma_stop() is more of an internal helper thing.

I dunno. I don't think it matters. But one thing I reacted to was that
when I was walking through the logic, I really wanted to say "seq_file
is wrong to call m_stop if m_start returned an error code". I really
felt like "hwy, if ->start fails, we damn well shouldn't have called
->stop".

But I guess we're stuck with that particular semantic for seq_files by now.

                         Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/