[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Illustration of warning explosion silliness
    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:19:36 -0400
    Jeff Garzik <> wrote:

    > 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.

    No I'm not. I'm saying that the bugs which this exposed are a far, far
    more serious matter than a few false-positive warnings which need

    > 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.

    If it's called in that fashion then the caller should still check the
    device_for_each_child() return value to find out if it actually got a

    Now it could be that the mysterious caller to which you refer uses the
    non-NULLness of some pointer to work out if a match occurred. Well shrug -
    add a BUG_ON(!device_for_each_child_return_value) or something.

    Or write a new version of device_for_each_child() which returns void and
    don't tell anyone about it.

    But let's not encourage error-ignoring.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-28 06:39    [W:0.023 / U:14.416 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site