From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1761742AbbA3N1F (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 08:27:05 -0500
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:19260 "EHLO
	userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757766AbbA3N1D (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 08:27:03 -0500
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:26:47 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se>
Cc: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>,
        H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@visionengravers.com>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Chase Southwood <chase.southwood@gmail.com>,
        Conrad Meyer <cemeyer@uw.edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fred Akers <knivey@botops.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: drivers: addi-data: hwdrv_apci1500:
 Change variables that is never used
Message-ID: <20150130132647.GA6456@mwanda>
References: <1422481377-31112-1-git-send-email-rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1422481377-31112-1-git-send-email-rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

The more I look at these, the more I don't like these patches.  The
original code looks like:

	foo = inb();

There is a 90% chance that we should just delete the whole line, but the
problem is that deleting the whole line is risky because sometimes
reading from the hardware has side effects.  So there is a 10% chance
that we should change to to:

	inb();

Changing it to that is safer, and that's what we are doing, but there is
a 90% chance that it is the wrong thing to do.

When we silence the warnings in the wrong way, then it makes it harder
for anyone to find the warnings and fix it in the correct way.  I also
would like to fix all the static checker warnings in the kernel, but
there is no point in just "silencing the warnings." we should need to
"fix" them.

It's frustrating that we aren't able to fix this code because we don't
have the hardware, but that's the reality.  Let's, please, leave the
warnings as-is until someone with hardware can fix them properly.

regards,
dan carpenter