Re: Rfkill rewrite: eeepc-laptop resume

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 15:02 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:

> >>  * This function tells the rfkill core that the device is capable of
> >>  * remembering soft blocks (which it is notified of via the set_block
> >>  * method) -- this means that the driver may ignore the return value
> >>  * from rfkill_set_hw_state().
> >>
> >> Doesn't this conflict with the declaration of rfkill_set_sw_state() as
> >> __must_check?
> >>     
> >
> > Yeah, in a way it does, but I figure it's rare enough that those who
> > really can ignore it can write
> > 	(void) rfkill_set_sw_state(...)
> >
> > Don't really have a strong opinion, it just seemed the mistake in the
> > other direction would be more common.
> >   
> Oops... I meant to write rfkill_set_hw_state(), I think you copied me.  Ok.

I, uh, didn't even pay that much attention.

> So then why is the _sw_ variant marked __must_check?  That looks like a
> mistake.  I don't see what I can sensibly do with the return value. 
> Unless you want EPO to veto a firmware-initiated enable?

Good question. It gives you the hardware enable state but I guess you
know about that already. Hmm :) Yeah it seems that we should remove that
__must_check.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]