linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] device_for_each_child(): kill pointless warning noise

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]

Message-ID: <451B2A58.9010603@garzik.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:50:16 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device_for_each_child(): kill pointless warning noise

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:05:18 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> 
>> As the last patch demonstrated, it is quite valid for a caller to ignore
>> the return value of device_for_each_child(), given that the return value
>> is wholly dependent on the actor -- which in practice often has a
>> hardcoded return value.
> 
> Yes, but almost all of the instances which you found are flat-out *wrong*. 
> They're returning 0 or 1 at random places in the callchain because they're
> calling intermediate void-returning functions which are themselves dropping
> error codes on the floor instead of returning them.

"almost all"  Thus it is wrong to _force_ the usage model on the caller.

It should be obvious that a simple search need not _require_ a dummy 
return value, that is promptly ignored.

See previous email for examples.

	Jeff



-
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/