[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z4kpmgorWB2wSKgz@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:45:30 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Mark devm_mutex_init() as __must_check
On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Even if it's not critical, the avoidance of checking the error code
> from devm_mutex_init() call today diminishes the point of using devm
> variant of it. Tomorrow it may even leak something. Enforce all callers
> checking the return value through the compiler.
>
> As devm_mutex_init() itself is a macro which can not be annotated,
> annotate __devm_mutex_init() instead.
> Unfortunately __must_check/warn_unused_result don't propagate through
> statement expression. To work around this move the statement expression
> into the argument list of the call to __devm_mutex_init() so
> devm_mutex_init() directly expands to __devm_mutex_init().
Did it go anywhere?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists