On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 12:13 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > 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");
Perhaps it should be. I didn't think it really mattered _that_ much if
the symlink suddenly went missing, but OTOH I don't even know how it
could possibly fail.
johannes