Re: [PATCH] rtlwifi: rtl8188ee: mark RTX_POWER_{BEFORE,AFTER}_IQK_A reads as unused

From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
Cc: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
	"linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtlwifi: rtl8188ee: mark RTX_POWER_{BEFORE,AFTER}_IQK_A reads as unused
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:17:20 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ilbrepyn.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0d1f24b9-a058-52fd-b669-54aa4e9162f9@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Antipov's message of "Thu, 1 Jun 2023 16:50:02 +0300")

Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru> writes:

>> Why not just
>>
>> rtl_get_bbreg(hw, RTX_POWER_BEFORE_IQK_A, MASKDWORD);
>> rtl_get_bbreg(hw, RTX_POWER_AFTER_IQK_A, MASKDWORD);
>
> Compiler with -Wextra etc. or static analysis tool may complain about an unused
> return value. As far as I know GCC has __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) but
> lacks an opposite thing, so (somewhat ugly explicit) cast to 'void' may be helpful.

I assume you are referring to this attribute:

#define __must_check                    __attribute__((__warn_unused_result__))

But if __must_check is NOT set doesn't it mean that checking of the
function's return value is optional? At least that's how I interpret the
meaning.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches