[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250207034550.GC4596@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 04:45:50 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Crawford <frank@...wford.emu.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 29/33] hwmon: (it87) Check the it87_lock() return
value
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:51:59PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> - it87_lock(data);
>> + int err = it87_lock(data);
>
> I am not going to accept patches with inline variable declarations
> if the patch is fixing an earlier problem, sorry. This only results
> in unnecessary backport failures.
In fact the inline variable declarations should never be used in
"normal" code by Linux coding standards. The only reason the
warning is disabled is for some of the magic scoping macros.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists