Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 08 May 2008 13:05:44 +0400 | From | Pavel Emelyanov <> | Subject | [PATCH] Mark res_counter_charge(_locked) with __must_check |
| |
Ignoring theirs return value may result in counter underflow in the future - when the value charged will be uncharged (or in "leaks" - when the value is not uncharged).
This also prevents from using charging routines to decrement the counter value (i.e. uncharge it) ;)
(Current code works OK with res_counter, however :) )
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/res_counter.h b/include/linux/res_counter.h index 6d9e1fc..125660e 100644 --- a/include/linux/res_counter.h +++ b/include/linux/res_counter.h @@ -95,8 +95,10 @@ void res_counter_init(struct res_counter *counter); * counter->limit _locked call expects the counter->lock to be taken */ -int res_counter_charge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val); -int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val); +int __must_check res_counter_charge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, + unsigned long val); +int __must_check res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter, + unsigned long val); /* * uncharge - tell that some portion of the resource is released
| |