[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061012154505.GA6014@dreamland.darkstar.lan>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:45:05 +0200
From: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc1] radeonfb: check return value of sysfs_create_bin_file
Il Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:07:26AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt ha scritto:
> On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 01:53 +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> > sysfs_create_bin_file() is marked as warn_unused_result but we don't
> > actually check the return value.
> > Error is not fatal, the driver can operate fine without the files so
> > just print a notice on failure.
>
> I find this whole business of must check return value for sysfs files to
> be gratuitous bloat. There are many cases (like this one) where we don't
> really care and a printk will just increase the kernel size for no good
> reason.
>
> Maybe we can have a macro we can use to silence the warning when we
> don't care about the result ? Can gcc do that ?
Ugly macro:
#define UNCHECKED(func) do { if (func) {} } while(0)
maybe it's better to have something like this:
int __sysfs_create_bin_file(...);
inline int sysfs_create_bin_file(...) __attribute__((warn_unused_result));
inline int sysfs_create_bin_file(...) {
return __sysfs_create_bin_file(...);
}
i.e. both checked and uncheck version of the same function.
Luca
--
Un apostolo vedendo Gesu` camminare sulle acque:
- Cazzo se e` buono 'sto fumo!!!
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists