Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:05:18 -0400
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
As the last patch demonstrated, it is quite valid for a caller to ignore
the return value of device_for_each_child(), given that the return value
is wholly dependent on the actor -- which in practice often has a
hardcoded return value.
Yes, but almost all of the instances which you found are flat-out *wrong*.
They're returning 0 or 1 at random places in the callchain because they're
calling intermediate void-returning functions which are themselves dropping
error codes on the floor instead of returning them.
"almost all" Thus it is wrong to _force_ the usage model on the caller.
It should be obvious that a simple search need not _require_ a dummy
return value, that is promptly ignored.
See previous email for examples.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
