[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdkvgeHnQ_SyR7QUqpsmtMPRe1SCJ_XJLQYv-gvLB6rbLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:40:59 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:13:17 -0700
> Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:09 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm curious. How many warnings showed up when you applied this patch?
> >
> > I got zero for x86_64 and arm64 defconfig builds of linux-next with
> > this applied. Hopefully that's not an argument against the more
> > liberal application of it? I view __must_check as a good thing, and
> > encourage its application, unless someone can show that a certain
> > function would be useful to call without it.
>
> Not at all, I was just curious, because I would have expected patches
> to fix possible bugs with it.
Ah, granted, I was surprised, too. Maybe would be helpful to mention
that in the commit message.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists