From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [git patches] two warning fixes Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:34:46 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20070718235504.GA9601@havoc.gtf.org> <469ECD29.2010909@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:04:29 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , LKML , ak@suse.de, adaplas@gmail.com, linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org Linus Torvalds writes: > More people *should* generally ask themselves: "was the warning worth it?" > and then, if the answer is "no", they shouldn't add code, they should > remove the thing that causes the warning in the first place. Sure. If a routine uses must_check yet its return value may be safely ignored then that must_check is simply misplaced and should be removed. It does not mean all must_checks are bad - each of them isn't bad unless one can demonstrate it is. Back to sysfs_create_bin_file() - if one can demonstrate a caller can safely ignore the return value (which, it seems, is the case), then exactly this very must_check should be removed. -- Krzysztof Halasa