From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757513Ab0FPJpY (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:45:24 -0400 Received: from poutre.nerim.net ([62.4.16.124]:56230 "EHLO poutre.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755837Ab0FPJpU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:45:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:45:17 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: David Daney Cc: David Daney , "Justin P. Mattock" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, clemens@ladisch.de, debora@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8]i2c:i2c_core Fix warning: variable 'dummy' set but not used Message-ID: <20100616114517.5ac49e26@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <4C17A857.8030306@caviumnetworks.com> References: <1276547208-26569-1-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <1276547208-26569-7-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <20100614225315.2bae9e37@hyperion.delvare> <4C169F19.1040608@gmail.com> <20100615134039.6ccfc17a@hyperion.delvare> <4C17A857.8030306@caviumnetworks.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.14.4; i586-suse-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:20:39 -0700, David Daney wrote: > On 06/15/2010 04:40 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > __process_new_adapter() calls i2c_do_add_adapter() which always returns > > 0. Why should I check the return value of bus_for_each_drv() when I > > know it will always be 0 by construction? > > > > Also note that the same function is also called through > > bus_for_each_dev() somewhere else in i2c-core, and there is no warning > > there because bus_for_each_dev() is not marked __must_check. How > > consistent is this? If bus_for_each_dev() is OK without __must_check, > > then I can't see why bus_for_each_drv() wouldn't be. > > Well, I would advocate removing the __must_check then. I have just sent a patch to LKML doing exactly this. -- Jean Delvare