On 08/07/2015 04:00 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> In 8250-omap I learned it the hard way that ignoring the return code
> of dmaengine_pause() might be bad because the underlying DMA driver
> might not support the function at all and so not doing what one is
> expecting.
> This patch adds the __must_check annotation as suggested by Russell King.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de>
> ---
> include/linux/dmaengine.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
> index 8ad9a4e839f6..4eac4716bded 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
> @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ static inline int dmaengine_terminate_all(struct dma_chan
> *chan)
> return -ENOSYS;
> }
>
> -static inline int dmaengine_pause(struct dma_chan *chan)
> +static inline int __must_check dmaengine_pause(struct dma_chan *chan)
> {
> if (chan->device->device_pause)
> return chan->device->device_pause(chan);
>
Not that this is your responsibility, Sebastian, but considering there are
fewer than 20 users of dmaengine_pause() in the entire tree, we should add
WARN_ON_ONCE() around those uses with this patch to avoid a bunch needless
one-off "fixes".
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
