linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rio: warn_unused

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]

Message-ID: <2a27d3730904280408j636d8e4tc1b6e1c827509379@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:08:13 +0800
From:	Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>
To:	michael@...erman.id.au
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, galak@...nel.crashing.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, mporter@...nel.crashing.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rio: warn_unused_result warnings fix

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Michael Ellerman
<michael@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 18:15 +0800, Li Yang wrote:
>> warning: ignoring return value of 'device_add', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
>> warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_bin_file', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c  |    5 ++++-
>>  drivers/rapidio/rio-sysfs.c |    6 ++++--
>>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c b/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c
>> index 74d0bfa..9309e24 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c
>> @@ -265,7 +265,10 @@ static void rio_route_set_ops(struct rio_dev *rdev)
>>   */
>>  static void __devinit rio_add_device(struct rio_dev *rdev)
>>  {
>> -     device_add(&rdev->dev);
>> +     int err;
>> +
>> +     err = device_add(&rdev->dev);
>> +     WARN_ON(err);
>>
>>       spin_lock(&rio_global_list_lock);
>>       list_add_tail(&rdev->global_list, &rio_devices);
>
> Is that really useful? Why not return the error to rio_setup_device()
> which can tell it's caller.

IMHO, when device_add() fails the system is quite broken.  So the
value is very limited for it to fail cleanly, which need some effort
to implement.  I can add it if you insist.

- Leo
--
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/