On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:47 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > It looks like for some of the fsm_set_and_search calls whose return > > value is ignored (in fsm_search and RecordPageWithFreeSpace), there's > > no (void). Is it intentional? > > Basically, fsm_set_and_search, serve both "set" and "search", but it > only search if the "minValue" is > 0. So if the minvalue is passed as > 0 then the return value is ignored intentionally. I can see in both > places where the returned value is ignored the minvalue is passed as > 0.
Thanks. I know why we are ignoring the return value. I was trying to say, when we ignore (for whatsoever reason it maybe) return value of any non-void returning function, we do something like below right? (void) fsm_set_and_search(rel, addr, slot, new_cat, 0); instead of fsm_set_and_search(rel, addr, slot, new_cat, 0); With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
