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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans