lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:13:17 -0700
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:09 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0200
> > Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0200
> > >
> > > Several functions return values with which useful data processing
> > > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then.
> > > Thus use the annotation “__must_check” in the shown function declarations.
> > >
> > > Add also corresponding parameter names for adjusted functions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > >
> >
> > I'm curious. How many warnings showed up when you applied this patch?
>
> I got zero for x86_64 and arm64 defconfig builds of linux-next with
> this applied. Hopefully that's not an argument against the more
> liberal application of it? I view __must_check as a good thing, and
> encourage its application, unless someone can show that a certain
> function would be useful to call without it.

Not at all, I was just curious, because I would have expected patches
to fix possible bugs with it.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-09 18:28    [W:0.046 / U:14.468 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site