From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.sh.mvista.com (unknown [63.81.120.155]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490BADDEC7 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:07:31 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <467C1E58.6070702@ru.mvista.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:09:12 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Boyer Subject: Re: [patch] powerpc: sysfs fix compiler warning References: <20070622194853.72fb652a@localhost> <1182537519.1554.14.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <467C1BB5.2040600@ru.mvista.com> <1182539095.1554.18.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1182539095.1554.18.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: Christian Krafft , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 22:57 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > >>Hello. >> >>Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> >>>>From: Christian Krafft >> >>>>This patch fixes the following compiler warning: >>>>arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c:385: warning: ignoring return value of >>>>`sysfs_create_group', >> >>>>Signed-off-by: Christian Krafft >> >>>>Index: linux-2.6.22-rc5/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c >>>>=================================================================== >>>>--- linux-2.6.22-rc5.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c >>>>+++ linux-2.6.22-rc5/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c >>>>@@ -380,16 +380,23 @@ int cpu_add_sysdev_attr_group(struct att >>>>{ >>>> int cpu; >>>> struct sys_device *sysdev; >>>>+ int error; >>>> >>>> mutex_lock(&cpu_mutex); >>>> >>>> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { >>>> sysdev = get_cpu_sysdev(cpu); >>>>- sysfs_create_group(&sysdev->kobj, attrs); >>>>+ error |= sysfs_create_group(&sysdev->kobj, attrs); >>>Why are you or'ing the return value with whatever is in the >>>uninitialized variable? >> To make it always fail, no doubt. ;-) >> ISO accumulation error, it makes more sense to start cleanup created >>groups right after the first creation failure -- although with the callers opf >>this function ignoring the result anyway, who cares. :-) > I care because he does an if (error) below that. Since error isn't > initialized, it could be some random value and or'ing a 0 return code > from sysfs_create_group would still trigger the error path. > Plus, it's bogus anyway and should be fixed. You misunderstood: I didn't at all object to fixing the bogosity you've pointed out, just mused about how/if the error cleanup should be done. > josh WBR, Sergei