linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm-current tree

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: <1495793788.2926.4.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2017 06:16:28 -0400
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm-current tree

On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 12:43 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> 
> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c: In function 'force_metapage':
> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c:714:2: warning: ignoring return value of 'write_one_page', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
>   write_one_page(page);
>   ^
> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c: In function 'release_metapage':
> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c:759:4: warning: ignoring return value of 'write_one_page', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result]
>     write_one_page(page);
>     ^
> 
> Introduced by commit
> 
>   f8652aebee02 ("mm: drop "wait" parameter from write_one_page()")
> 
> These call sites were updated for the droppping of the argument, but
> not for the addition of __must_check :-(
> 

(cc'ing Dave...)

Yeah, that's a known issue. When Willy reviewed the patch originally he
asked me to add a __must_check there so that JFS would pick up some
warnings for this.

JFS really ought to check the return code there and do something sane
with it. Dave?

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>