From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B75C47404 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:34:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6A621848 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:34:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="VpbQlUwj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732185AbfJIReK (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:34:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f177.google.com ([209.85.210.177]:37678 "EHLO mail-pf1-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731919AbfJIReK (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:34:10 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f177.google.com with SMTP id y5so2068352pfo.4 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UjqBpI06iiBQsYq2V/w1u3B49phxB0GEC0jogQFNuAQ=; b=VpbQlUwjjLfHn3Nl+VhVs9C7cU3yzf7C0n4quuU8lytEoqyUJC0yVNtMeHEZxONwBG +eV+gN3RZwnzE7CxdlcBlpmJZraEgcFjy2kIGL6jfc/1KK+D8rNWCiTKduAB3N91NGvj cQhRgcL9EpWrytbjz1xyIeg327Oyr2RrgIQn04UvW3L7ffdwYj/uGlzs5ITF5lphYCOT 8RTQY1UykssE6uoOOc8lVJG8jdMk3eNpBL6a1Er12MGcEzMBrhbz/GG0unCR7nXMnCZs W/OHJSaChQcwRhiX4KQjVyBnvdmlpCn+i1k6ns8NjGzkY2C5ENY+sqH72upAzEDIjRkh uN4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UjqBpI06iiBQsYq2V/w1u3B49phxB0GEC0jogQFNuAQ=; b=KWOIsrLMFpafTKdZhJIgJ6SbAudPYs3gPJDUHXGvpIjTpwQ38gpoKVq5p6hud+qCA7 Cj4zpH+EtGwU1P4SWe7yPuEQOKn9Bgv52MY+Vb0MyiaStimvQGedhWOH9AKca/+iKEQt DIl9cGpWf4RplMCmHTSNQ7VrDjW5uuWs4xx3ByRM1YkK/ncUApGMjs3PZv5WeD4+wOBy W4qiTamhPsnvAcY9GDe3nUSXL/bJZyDAW2JtklrfbfiCQhuZbIBS1gwiLE061d04+jwH VqPQuRG1/V7d7sqhHXMTk0Z2/DO+cbzyDYff67453zHBiVVSSQiGCqQyB4uOrWu1evfD v8Sw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUhrtYsPnCy8imUCtLgNAGVOv7gHZvNY++9btTLTeylAnU6uFAk J7ydMZ0scElnyuauhgBKoBEhGEdztreRPSu4peGvpg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwqUks7z0CCplcskgsaNVDeVXtoWQQW90hGAq5OkREAcD/1wk1zlhagtSzy/wUXtmb6E4JS72pJV8olbVRaXeg= X-Received: by 2002:a63:5a03:: with SMTP id o3mr5500405pgb.381.1570642448938; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <75f70e5e-9ece-d6d1-a2c5-2f3ad79b9ccb@web.de> <20191009110943.7ff3a08a@gandalf.local.home> <20191009122735.17415f9c@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:33:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check To: Markus Elfring Cc: Steven Rostedt , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Shishkin , Andrew Morton , Andy Shevchenko , Joe Perches , Kees Cook , LKML , Miguel Ojeda Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:04 AM Markus Elfring wrote: > > > Ah, granted, I was surprised, too. > > Thanks for this view. I mean, it's a good thing that we don't have any issues that this patch would catch today. Seems Steven and I were surprised (pessimistic?). > > > > Maybe would be helpful to mention that in the commit message. > > My Linux software build resources might be too limited to take > more system configuration variations safely into account > for this issue. That's understandable. I think if the patch bakes in linux-next, it might flush out some problematic cases in other ARCH's. > Would you like to achieve further checks here? I reviewed the functions here and believe the ones you added checks for all look good. I value Rasmus' feedback, so I'd like to hear what he thinks about my earlier comments. I have no comment if we should go further/annotate more, other than that that can be done in a follow up patch. Though Joe's comment on the relative order of where the annotation appears in the function declarations should be addressed in a V2 IMO. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers