[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUULHGmsAu1f=4of1A+ABecH89PRxDqRGewqhG7bbL3-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:03:08 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 35/42] sh: Check notifier registration return value
Hi Borislav,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:49 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 02:31:41PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Do you think these can actually fail?
>
> Hmm, maybe you missed the 0th message. Does this explain it:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211108101924.15759-1-bp@alien8.de
>
> ?
Thanks, but that still doesn't explain why we need to add the check,
for something that IMHO cannot fail, in a caller that cannot do
anything in the very unlikely event that he call would ever start
to fail?
The clue is the addition of __must_check in "[PATCH v0 42/42] notifier:
Return an error when callback is already registered"
(https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211108101157.15189-43-bp@alien8.de/).
I'll reply to that one...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists