On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:29:52 +0530 > Sasikantha babu wrote: > > > 1) Removed already created debug fs entries on failure > > > > 2) Fixed coding style 80 char per line > > > > Signed-off-by: Sasikantha babu > > --- > > mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > > index a44eab3..5553723 100644 > > --- a/mm/memblock.c > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > > @@ -966,11 +966,19 @@ static int __init memblock_init_debugfs(void) > > { > > struct dentry *root = debugfs_create_dir("memblock", NULL); > > if (!root) > > - return -ENXIO; > > - debugfs_create_file("memory", S_IRUGO, root, &memblock.memory, > &memblock_debug_fops); > > - debugfs_create_file("reserved", S_IRUGO, root, &memblock.reserved, > &memblock_debug_fops); > > + return -ENOMEM; > > hm, why the switch to -ENOMEM? > > Just for consistency (But its dumb mistake I made). > Fact is, debugfs_create_dir() and debugfs_create_file() are stupid > interfaces which don't provide the caller (and hence the user) with any > information about why they failed. Perhaps memblock_init_debugfs() > should return -EWESUCK. > I'm working on a patch which address this issue. debugfs_create_XXX calls will return proper error codes, and fixing the existing code not each and every part but the code which handles the values returned by debufs_create_XXX otherwise it will break the existing functionality . (any suggestions or opinions ?) . Thanks Sasi > > > + if (!debugfs_create_file("memory", S_IRUGO, root, &memblock.memory, > > + &memblock_debug_fops)) > > + goto fail; > > + if (!debugfs_create_file("reserved", S_IRUGO, root, > &memblock.reserved, > > + &memblock_debug_fops)) > > + goto fail; > > > > return 0; > > +fail: > > + debugfs_remove_recursive(root); > > + return -ENOMEM; > > } > > __initcall(memblock_init_debugfs); > >