On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:13:17 -0700 Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:09 AM Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0200 > > Markus Elfring <markus.elfr...@web.de> wrote: > > > > > From: Markus Elfring <elfr...@users.sourceforge.net> > > > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0200 > > > > > > Several functions return values with which useful data processing > > > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then. > > > Thus use the annotation “__must_check” in the shown function declarations. > > > > > > Add also corresponding parameter names for adjusted functions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfr...@users.sourceforge.net> > > > > > > > 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. -- Steve
