linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fadvise: avoid EINVAL if user input is valid

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:10:25 +0000
From:	Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To:	Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise: avoid EINVAL if user input is valid

Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com> wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 02:27 AM, Eric Wong wrote:
> > +		force_page_cache_readahead(mapping, file, start_index, nrpages);
> >  		break;
> 
> This whole patch makes sense to me.
> The above chunk might cause confusion in future,
> if people wonder for a moment why the return is ignored.
> Should you use cast with (void) like this to be explicit?
> 
> (void) force_page_cache_readahead(...);

I considered this, too[1].  However I checked for existing usages of
force_page_cache_readahead() noticed they just ignore the return value
like I did in my patch, so I followed existing convention for this
function.   I didn't find any suggestion in Documentation/CodingStyle
for this.

Thanks for looking at this.

[1] - it's what I normally do in my own projects.
--
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/