From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030973AbdEZKQe (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2017 06:16:34 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:36282 "EHLO mail-qt0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030453AbdEZKQb (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2017 06:16:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1495793788.2926.4.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the akpm-current tree From: Jeff Layton To: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , Dave Kleikamp Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ross Zwisler , Jan Kara , Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 06:16:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170526124324.058c3d2a@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20170526124324.058c3d2a@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 (3.22.6-2.fc25) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? -- Jeff Layton