From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751384Ab1ADU1b (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:27:31 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:37155 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750840Ab1ADU1b (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:27:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:27:18 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must_check Message-ID: <20110104202718.GA31444@suse.de> References: <1294159868-4989-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1294159868-4989-1-git-send-email-w.sang@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 05:51:06PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Here is a small series generating a lot of warnings, especially in board > bringup-files. Still, I think it is worthwhile to be strict about checking > return values of gpio-configuration-functions. My suggestion to keep the noise > a bit lower is to put it into linux-next for one cycle and then merge it for > 2.6.39? That should give people some time to fix the issues in time. Looking > forward to comments. It's ok to add this type of thing, but please, go through and fix the warnings at the same time. Otherwise it's a bit rude to force others to fix their code for something that you did. Care to also send those patches along? thanks, greg k-h