lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subject__must_check (stir the pot :-))
So I am looking at "fixing" some of the warning produced by __must_check
but then I see (things like):

drivers/base/core.c: In function 'device_add':
drivers/base/core.c:714: warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_link', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
drivers/base/core.c:719: warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_link', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
drivers/base/core.c:722: warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_link', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
drivers/base/core.c:728: warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_link', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
drivers/base/core.c: In function 'device_rename':
drivers/base/core.c:1187: warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_link', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
drivers/base/core.c:1197: warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_link', declared with attribute warn_unused_result

and things like this in drivers/base/sys.c:

int sysdev_create_file(struct sys_device * s, struct sysdev_attribute * a)
{
return sysfs_create_file(&s->kobj, &a->attr);
}

where sysfs_create_file() is marked __must_check and sysdev_create_file()
isn't.

So the questions come to mind: Do we really care if our core
infrastructure doesn't? Can we care if the core infrastructure doesn't
propogate the error returns?

Flame away, I am prepared to ignore all opinions :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-15 09:35    [W:0.038 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site