[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707181834070.27353@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ak@...e.de,
adaplas@...il.com, linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [git patches] two warning fixes
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Please pull from 'warnings' branch of
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/misc-2.6.git warnings
>
> to receive the following updates:
Quite frankly, I think a *lot* better fix for warnings would be to remove
those damn broken "must_check" things on functions that don't at all need
checking!
I'm pretty fed up with random "must_check" and "deprecated". They have
never *ever* helped anybody, afaik. There are some very few functions that
really do need to have their error returns checked (because not checking
it is a security issue), but people seem to think "must_check" is a good
approximation of "I think most of the time it makes sense to check".
So let's make a new rule:
We absolutely NEVER add things like "must_check" unless not checking
causes a real and obvious SECURITY ISSUE.
And we absolutely *never* add crap like "deprecated", where the only
point of the warning is to effectively hide *real* problems.
So realistically, the only thing that needs must_check is pretty much
things like "get_user()" and quite frankly, I'm not sure even about that
one.
Ok?
Linus
-
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