lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] genhd must_check warning fix
    Date
    On Wednesday 12 March 2008 14:53, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 14:25, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > >> Roland McGrath wrote:
    > >>> Fixes:
    > >>>
    > >>> block/genhd.c:361: warning: ignoring return value of ‘class_register’,
    > >>> declared with attribute warn_unused_result
    > >>>
    > >>> Signed-off-by: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
    > >>> ---
    > >>> block/genhd.c | 4 +++-
    > >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
    > >>>
    > >>> diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c
    > >>> index c44527d..00da521 100644
    > >>> --- a/block/genhd.c
    > >>> +++ b/block/genhd.c
    > >>> @@ -360,7 +360,9 @@ static struct kobject *base_probe(dev_t devt, int
    > >>> *part, void *data)
    > >>>
    > >>> static int __init genhd_device_init(void)
    > >>> {
    > >>> - class_register(&block_class);
    > >>> + int error = class_register(&block_class);
    > >>> + if (unlikely(error))
    > >>> + return error;
    > >>> bdev_map = kobj_map_init(base_probe, &block_class_lock);
    > >>> blk_dev_init();
    > >>
    > >> ACK
    > >>
    > >> I was silly and simply tuned out this warning, assuming [wrongly] that
    > >> it was difficult to fix like the fs/partitions.c warning.
    > >>
    > >> Shows how "helpful" those warnings are...
    > >
    > > I don't see why? If the warning wasn't there, then Roland probably
    > > wouldn't have noticed. So to me it shows that the warning actually
    > > is helpful (without "") in this case.
    >
    > The point was more that the warnings are so often silly that it teaches
    > the human to tune out the warnings -- even when they turn out to reveal
    > real problems, as in this case.

    But the must_check warning? fs/partitions/check.c warning seems like it
    is still a real error, whether or not it is hard to fix.


    > I've been working quietly, the past several kernels, trying to kill most
    > compiler warnings, so I've been paying close attention to this sort of
    > stuff in general.

    If you tune out the must_check warnings, then how is that better than
    not having them at all? In either case, you'd have missed this genhd
    bug(let).

    --
    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: 2008-03-12 05:11    [W:0.024 / U:30.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site