On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 09:26:24AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > It should now be rare to trigger this warning - it doesn't need to be so > verbose. Make it follow the usual style in the module loading code. > > For the same reason, drop the dump_stack(). > > Suggested-by: Petr Pavlu <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/module/main.c | 10 +++------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c > index 74ff87b13c517..31c54bf6df4b2 100644 > --- a/kernel/module/main.c > +++ b/kernel/module/main.c > @@ -3045,13 +3045,9 @@ static noinline int do_init_module(struct module *mod) > } > goto fail_free_freeinit; > } > - if (ret > 0) { > - pr_warn("%s: '%s'->init suspiciously returned %d, it should " > - "follow 0/-E convention\n" > - "%s: loading module anyway...\n", > - __func__, mod->name, ret, __func__); > - dump_stack(); > - } > + if (ret > 0) > + pr_warn("%s: init suspiciously returned %d, it should follow > 0/-E convention\n", > + mod->name, ret); > > /* Now it's a first class citizen! */ > mod->state = MODULE_STATE_LIVE; > > -- > 2.51.0 > >
Fair enough. Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Aaron Tomlin <[email protected]> -- Aaron Tomlin
