[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1859e39-22de-5693-cd75-bb67dcfe1212@web.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:06:15 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check
> I reviewed the functions here and believe the ones you added checks
> for all look good.
Thanks for your positive feedback.
> Though Joe's comment on the relative order of where the
> annotation appears in the function declarations should be addressed in
> a V2 IMO.
Would you be looking for a subsequent change also by the means of
the semantic patch language with which the (function) attributes
can be adjusted to the ordering that you would prefer finally?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists