[PATCH 1/4] Modularize the handling of netdev address c/r

Oren Laadan orenl at cs.columbia.edu
Mon Apr 26 09:05:59 PDT 2010

Dan Smith wrote:
> OL> Does this test-and-set need locking ?
> No, I was just planning on getting lucky each time.  Er, okay, yes :)
>>> +	if (try_module_get(h->owner))
>>> +		return h;
>>> +	else
>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> OL> Maybe some ckpt_err() here ?  I can feel the frustration of trying
> OL> to figure out where _this_ came from !
> I'd prefer not to do that this deep.  I think the varying depth at
> which we call ckpt_err() starts to get confusing.  Regardless, the


I was just thinking about a user seeing EBUSY and a message about
the netdev addr, and how he/she would reason that this is because
a module is missing ...

On the other hand, we could keep the scheme you have now, and then
document this possibility in a FAQ, readme, manual etc.

> call of this function is checked and reported, which I think will make
> tracking down an error result rather easy:
>   h = get_addr_handler(i);
>   if (!h)
>   	continue;
>   else if (IS_ERR(h)) {
>   	addrs = PTR_ERR(h);
>   	ckpt_err(ctx, addrs,
>   		 "Unable to handle netdev addr type %s\n",
>   		 addr_modules[i]);
>   	break;
>   }
> no?



More information about the Containers mailing list