lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/8]i2c:i2c_core Fix warning: variable 'dummy' set but not used
On 06/15/2010 04:40 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:28:57 -0700, David Daney wrote:
>> On 06/14/2010 01:53 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> Hi Justin,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:26:46 -0700, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>>> could be a right solution, could be wrong
>>>> here is the warning:
>>>> CC drivers/i2c/i2c-core.o
>>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c: In function 'i2c_register_adapter':
>>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:757:15: warning: variable 'dummy' set but not used
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>> index 1cca263..79c6c26 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>> @@ -794,6 +794,8 @@ static int i2c_register_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>>>> mutex_lock(&core_lock);
>>>> dummy = bus_for_each_drv(&i2c_bus_type, NULL, adap,
>>>> __process_new_adapter);
>>>> + if(!dummy)
>>>> + dummy = 0;
>>>
>>> One word: scripts/checkpatch.pl
>>>
>>> In other news, the above is just plain wrong. First we force people to
>>> read the result of bus_for_each_drv() and then when they do and don't
>>> need the value, gcc complains, so we add one more layer of useless
>>> code, which developers and possibly tools will later wonder and
>>> complain about? I can easily imagine that a static code analyzer would
>>> spot the above code as being a potential bug.
>>>
>>> Let's stop this madness now please.
>>>
>>> Either __must_check goes away from bus_for_each_drv() and from every
>>> other function which raises this problem, or we must disable that new
>>> type of warning gcc 4.6.0 generates. Depends which warnings we value
>>> more, as we can't sanely have both.
>>>
>>
>> That is the crux of the whole thing. Putting in crap to get rid of the
>> __must_check warning someone obviously wanted to provoke is just plain
>> wrong.
>
> __process_new_adapter() calls i2c_do_add_adapter() which always returns
> 0. Why should I check the return value of bus_for_each_drv() when I
> know it will always be 0 by construction?
>
> Also note that the same function is also called through
> bus_for_each_dev() somewhere else in i2c-core, and there is no warning
> there because bus_for_each_dev() is not marked __must_check. How
> consistent is this? If bus_for_each_dev() is OK without __must_check,
> then I can't see why bus_for_each_drv() wouldn't be.
>

Well, I would advocate removing the __must_check then.


David Daney


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-15 18:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans