[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061012160553.GA7382@dreamland.darkstar.lan>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:05:53 +0200
From: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
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 05:54:55PM +0200, Andreas Schwab ha scritto:
> Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com> writes:
>
> > 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)
>
> Better, but only marginally:
>
> #define UNCHECKED(func) (void)(func)
Nope, I tried[1] before sending the mail ;) warn_unused_result requires
that you _use_ the result.
Luca
[1] kronos:~$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061007 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-16)
--
"It is more complicated than you think"
-- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925
-
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