Re: [PATCH 1/2]drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c Fix variable 'retval' set but not used

["Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>]

On 08/03/2010 04:28 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:26:28 PDT, "Justin P. Mattock" said:
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c b/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c
>
>>   	if (alt->string)
>> -		retval = device_create_file(&intf->dev,&dev_attr_interface);
>> +		device_create_file(&intf->dev,&dev_attr_interface);
>>   	intf->sysfs_files_created = 1;
>>   	return 0;
>
> What should the code do if device_create_file() manages to fail? Yes, ignoring
> the return value is one option, but is it the best one?  'return ret;' might be
> another one. Somebody who understands this code and has more caffeine than me
> should look this over.
>
ignoring the return value is one option, but is it the best one? 
probably not. As for return ret; the option did cross my mind, but 
figured to do what I had done by removing the retval

> (Nothing personal Justin - it's just my opinion that *anytime* we have a patch
> that remove a check for a return code, it needs to justify that ignoring the
> return code is appropriate).
>

nothing personal taken.. in fact I agree with that whole paragraph. 
looking back I should of really explained why I was removing this code 
besides a warning message.

Thanks for the response and info on this..

Justin P. Mattock