Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:47:31 +0100 | From | Michal Kubecek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/22] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface |
| |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:25:09PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 03:13:43PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 02:07:35PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > > +static int __init ethnl_init(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + ret = genl_register_family(ðtool_genl_family); > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > + panic("ethtool: could not register genetlink family\n"); > > > > > > Panic seems a bit strong. Do we really want to kill the box because > > > this fails? > > > > When I switched CONFIG_ETHTOOL_NETLINK from tristate to bool, I checked > > some other non-modular subsystems to see what they do on failed > > initialization and each of them did handle it by panic() so I didn't > > think about it too much and did the same. > > > > Thinking about it now, if the family registration fails, the only entry > > point to care about should be ethtool_notify() (I'll have to check more > > carefully to be sure) so that adding a check there should be sufficient > > to let everything work (except for the netlink interface, of course). > > Hi Michal > > So maybe do a WARN_ON() and return the error code. > > Linus has been quite vocal about killing the box when there is no real > need...
Yes, WARN_ON() seems to be the right thing to do: it says clearly enough something went seriously wrong but doesn't make the system completely unusable. I'll do that in v5.
Michal
| |