linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/28] drivers/base/platform.c: Drop return value from platform

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:	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:17:59 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	Vorobiev Dmitri <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi>,
	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/28] drivers/base/platform.c: Drop return value from
	platform_driver remove functions

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:37:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 17:18, Vorobiev Dmitri wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:26, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>> The return value of the remove function of a driver structure, and thus
> >>> of
> >>> a platform_driver structure, is ultimately ignored, and is thus
> >>> unnecessary.  The goal of this patch is to make it possible to convert
> >>> the
> >>> platform_driver functions stored in the remove field such that they
> >>> return
> >>> void.  This patch introduces a temporary field remove_new with return
> >>> type
> >>> void into the platform_driver structure, and updates the only place that
> >>> the remove function is called to call the function in the remove_new
> >>> field,
> >>> if one is available.  The subsequent patches update some drivers to use
> >>> the
> >>> remove_new field.
> >>
> >> why bother with remove -> remove_new convention ?
> >
> > Please see this email for the background:
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/231
> >
> >>  you'll get a
> >> warning in C about the assignment, but you wont get a build failure,
> >
> > ...unless you compile with -Werror, which frequently the case.
> 
> anyone crazy enough to build with -Werror is crazy enough to send in a fix ;)

Hm, have you noted that some arches have that flag enabled in their
build?

And it's not ok to add a couple of hundred build warnings to the system,
sorry.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/