From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm-current tree Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 06:28:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3652f203-b100-4d66-9fa7-062106167a19@oracle.com> References: <20170526124324.058c3d2a@canb.auug.org.au> <1495793788.2926.4.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:27208 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1035562AbdEZL2g (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2017 07:28:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1495793788.2926.4.camel@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jeff Layton , Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ross Zwisler , Jan Kara , Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig On 05/26/2017 05:16 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 12:43 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc >> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: >> >> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c: In function 'force_metapage': >> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c:714:2: warning: ignoring return value of 'write_one_page', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] >> write_one_page(page); >> ^ >> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c: In function 'release_metapage': >> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c:759:4: warning: ignoring return value of 'write_one_page', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] >> write_one_page(page); >> ^ >> >> Introduced by commit >> >> f8652aebee02 ("mm: drop "wait" parameter from write_one_page()") >> >> These call sites were updated for the droppping of the argument, but >> not for the addition of __must_check :-( >> > > (cc'ing Dave...) > > Yeah, that's a known issue. When Willy reviewed the patch originally he > asked me to add a __must_check there so that JFS would pick up some > warnings for this. > > JFS really ought to check the return code there and do something sane > with it. Dave? This is true. I promised to do something about it. I'll try to get a patch out later today. Dave