Re: Rfkill rewrite: eeepc-laptop resume

[Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>]

Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 14:29 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>
>   
>> API nit:
>>
>>  * 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.

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?

Thanks
Alan