linux-kernel - Re: kernel/params.c: 'err' variable "set but not used" and perhaps should be?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 5 Jun 2015 23:24:31 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Louis Langholtz <lou_langholtz@...com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel/params.c: 'err' variable "set but not used" and perhaps
 should be?

Hello, Rusty.

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:09:29AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> What will a second warning which is never triggered achieve?  A bit of

How do you know that tho?  Somebody may change something in the module
code, kernfs or sysfs and break something in an unexpected way.  We've
always used BUG_ON() in __init functions to annotate things which
shouldn't fail.

> code bloat and confusion, when I really do want to ignore the value.

BUG_ON()s are very light weight, __init code gets dropped once done,
and this is an established way of annotating operations which aren't
expected to fail.

I'm having a hard time understanding the point of this thread.  :(

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/