lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 28 Sep 2006 00:19:36 -0400
FromJeff Garzik <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Illustration of warning explosion silliness
Andrew Morton wrote:
> And it's not sufficient to say "gee, I can't think of any reason why this
> handler would return an error, so I'll design its callers to assume that". 
> It is _much_ better to design the callers to assume that callees _can_
> fail, and to stick the `return 0;' into the terminal callee.  Because
> things can change.

huh?  You're going off on a tangent.  I agree with the above, just like 
I already agreed that SCSI needs better error checking.

You're ignoring the API issue at hand.  Let me say it again for the 
cheap seats:  "search"  You search a list, and stick a pointer somewhere 
when found.  No hardware touched.  No allocations.  Real world.  There 
is an example of usage in the kernel today.

Yes, SCSI needs better error checking.  Yes, device_for_each_child() 
actors _may_ return errors.  No, that doesn't imply 
device_for_each_child() actors must be FORCED BY DESIGN to return error 
codes.  It's just walking a list.  The current implementation and API is 
fine... save for the "__must_check" marker itself.  The actor CAN return 
an error code via the current API.

CAN, not MUST.  (using RFC language)

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-28 06:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2008