lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] x86, ptrace: void dopiness

    * Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@intel.com> wrote:

    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@elte.hu]
    > >Sent: Montag, 22. September 2008 13:51
    > >To: Metzger, Markus T
    > >Cc: markus.t.metzger@gmail.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
    > >akpm@linux-foundation.org; Roland McGrath
    > >Subject: Re: [patch] x86, ptrace: void dopiness
    > >
    > >
    > >* Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@intel.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> +++ gits.x86/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c 2008-09-19
    > >13:53:02.%N +0200
    > >> @@ -738,7 +738,7 @@
    > >> unsigned int sig = 0;
    > >>
    > >> /* we ignore the error in case we were not
    > >tracing child */
    > >> - (void)ds_release_bts(child);
    > >> + ds_release_bts(child);
    > >
    > >hm, here the cast is OK because we actually ignore the return value.
    > >
    > >> @@ -947,7 +947,7 @@
    > >> clear_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_SYSCALL_EMU);
    > >> #endif
    > >> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PTRACE_BTS
    > >> - (void)ds_release_bts(child);
    > >> + ds_release_bts(child);
    > >
    > >is it right/intentional here?
    >
    > The void-cast is intentional in both cases.
    >
    > I thought it a question of style, i.e. that we don't want void casts
    > just like we want NULL instead of 0.

    ok.

    But you could mark ds_release_bts() as a __must_check function, in that
    case the (void) has functional aspects as well: the kernel build will
    complain if a return value is ignored unintentionally.

    So i think the code might be fine as-is after all :-/

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-22 14:11    [W:0.090 / U:61.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site