linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] two warning fixes

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:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:34:46 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	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

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> More people *should* generally ask themselves: "was the warning worth it?" 
> and then, if the answer is "no", they shouldn't add code, they should 
> remove the thing that causes the warning in the first place.

Sure. If a routine uses must_check yet its return value may be
safely ignored then that must_check is simply misplaced and should
be removed. It does not mean all must_checks are bad - each of them
isn't bad unless one can demonstrate it is.

Back to sysfs_create_bin_file() - if one can demonstrate a caller
can safely ignore the return value (which, it seems, is the
case), then exactly this very must_check should be removed.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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/