linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] staging: ste_rmi4: Suppress 'ignoring return value of ‘regulator

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 May 2013 12:21:39 +0530
From:	Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] staging: ste_rmi4: Suppress 'ignoring return value of ‘regulator_enable()' warning

On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 16:18:55 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 12:37:14PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 17:48:10 +0200, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c:
> > >         In function ‘synaptics_rmi4_resume’:
> > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c:1090:18:
> > >         warning: ignoring return value of ‘regulator_enable’, declared
> > >         with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result
> > > 
> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c |    4 +++-
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> > > index fe667dd..c4d013d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> > > @@ -1087,7 +1087,9 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_resume(struct device *dev)
> > >  	unsigned char intr_status;
> > >  	struct synaptics_rmi4_data *rmi4_data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > >  
> > > -	regulator_enable(rmi4_data->regulator);
> > > +	retval = regulator_enable(rmi4_data->regulator);
> > > +	if (retval < 0)
> > > +		return retval;
> > Does it make sense to add a dev_err?
> > 
> 
> Is that a question?
> 
> regulator_enable() already prints some warnings.  Probably it's not
> going to fail and adding code that is duplicative or will never be
> run is pointless.

It has become a habit checking the return value and spit some errors.
And BTW, there are many drivers which does this way..Anyway if your
intention is to avoid them for the new drivers..I dont mind skipping
this..

regards/srinidhi


> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/