From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Trippelsdorf Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the block tree Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 08:19:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20170510061927.GA294@x4> References: <20170510112411.1e785033@canb.auug.org.au> <20170510022054.GA23014@x4> <90588794-4b7a-e89b-84aa-db93cfbd9be4@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <90588794-4b7a-e89b-84aa-db93cfbd9be4@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Bart Van Assche List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 2017.05.09 at 21:00 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 05/09/2017 08:20 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.05.10 at 11:24 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Jens, > >> > >> After merging the block tree, today's linux-next build (arm > >> multi_v7_defconfig) produced this warning: > >> > >> block/elevator.c: In function 'elv_iosched_store': > >> block/elevator.c:1102:2: warning: ignoring return value of 'strstrip', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] > >> strstrip(elevator_name); > >> ^ > >> > >> Introduced by commit > >> > >> d0f6e2da5871 ("block: Remove leading whitespace and trailing newline in elevator switch error message") > > > > Yes, it was missing a (void) like "(void)strlcpy(...)". But Jens > > unfortunately removed both warnings, so the following patch should now > > be enough: > > > > diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c > > index fda6be933130..dd0ed19e4fb7 100644 > > --- a/block/elevator.c > > +++ b/block/elevator.c > > @@ -1099,8 +1099,7 @@ ssize_t elv_iosched_store(struct request_queue *q, const char *name, > > return count; > > > > strlcpy(elevator_name, skip_spaces(name), sizeof(elevator_name)); > > - strstrip(elevator_name); > > - ret = __elevator_change(q, elevator_name); > > + ret = __elevator_change(q, strstrip(elevator_name)); > > if (!ret) > > return count; > > Care to send that as a proper patch? I don't see that warning here, fwiw. I don't see it either. But no, I don't want to send a proper patch. Please just drop my original patch (d0f6e2da5871), because its only reason was to improve the two debug printks that you have removed later. -- Markus