Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:07:43 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |