From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A7C61AAE17 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 15:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737042337; cv=none; b=EtWbH2VmrIN4d755J4AVv9zZGEZDsWB6r46LOHShKSFR1KrHufedYtpk77dbUq2Jan7LsAp2CPGY3kA+B/9Ld9b3kRdEhGWDIJYvwkNhLJ5U0P3CM1iKmhK9JvP8TDyft+y3GkZj4LPyM/JvMxJT+XiiAO4EOm6JI6AQkADdn30= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737042337; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/HKaPjPgANpL4c7XjmwX8MnkpMU3cL/WhOc7x6OsoBw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JLuOp/dE2sl99U/H5F3NP0Jj+SdppVsCIdc57sgPn33+lg2lnqy9f5tPmiEMagetEOpUgvz/110gewxUuNQNYOrH0+8WgiegLgAY+mNvakm//gWqEQn4FnxCdbQPIf3dQbGchJWjkm4J+IJBIinYAd32JtP8ZbzTOxUeNg9CS2w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=CWywzo1K; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="CWywzo1K" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1737042336; x=1768578336; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=/HKaPjPgANpL4c7XjmwX8MnkpMU3cL/WhOc7x6OsoBw=; b=CWywzo1KuuzdYlQ1atMKKA0a2b2g/3+zV9qpk06Z8HRnNC2TAShqb7r5 rihyJy/HuJobMOVz75mWv508J2xUbzurK9hS44U7tdRc9xr01Qo6rPDLa zFtPLPbJ6ZKzZATi+J5S8fMNiuK+pQMQBaUjCVwT8axCRULdLYKfMuu5x tfR1oC30P6DPlQZtLedI4sjPqXoPp8EEJ/EfnfEYZSxL6gzViwN7mk6/D vAFJ++Cim27EU8RnWqOnsA9qXeWGjRZUzSjQPoBPh3O3mqxK8R+TFOzBf fOcMZcHH/bV1ldTtvb/E3tdB9a2OCv7/CU+8+1ZuOpu9+yAunxES2EMtl g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: /3X4vhBKSXahyXBBpU21dw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: W4Bz++YhRjyJQw0tkJEspg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11317"; a="37353780" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,209,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="37353780" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by fmvoesa111.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2025 07:45:35 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: bzV3+PLBTrOBDL/jDTrQxQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: oCkUPmw2QuqwPc0I/9cvxQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,209,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="105480049" Received: from unknown (HELO smile.fi.intel.com) ([10.237.72.154]) by fmviesa007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2025 07:45:34 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tYS3n-00000001iqW-0a26; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:45:31 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:45:30 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Waiman Long , Boqun Feng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Mark devm_mutex_init() as __must_check Message-ID: References: <20241202-must_check-devm_mutex_init-v1-1-e60eb97b8c72@weissschuh.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20241202-must_check-devm_mutex_init-v1-1-e60eb97b8c72@weissschuh.net> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo 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