>
> > Who wrote all this stuff, and what were they thinking?
>
> I suspect what they were thinking was the old "if you can't figure out
> how to handle the error, don't test for it" thing.
the __must_check gcc feature was primarily designed to mark security
sensitive API's (such as copy_from_user) where you really do have to
check. Or cases where not checking/using is always a bug (realloc() in
userspace comes to mind).
It's OUR choice to mark the sysfs functions with this semantic, if we
don't want this strict warning we shouldn't use this attribute.
Based on many of the things that showed up so far, and Andrews comments,
I sort of get the feeling we DO want this behavior though...
-
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]
