Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-07 Thread Paul Bolle
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:51 +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > > 2) Please note that if the callback

Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-07 Thread Paul Bolle
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:51 +0900, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: 2) Please note that if the callback always

Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-06 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > 2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero, > > > driver_for_each_device() can still return

Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-06 Thread Paul Bolle
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > 2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero, > > driver_for_each_device() can still return -EINVAL, but only if it was > > provided a NULL "drv" (a struct

Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-06 Thread Paul Bolle
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: 2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero, driver_for_each_device() can still return -EINVAL, but only if it was provided a NULL drv (a struct

Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-06 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:31 +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: 2) Please note that if the callback always returns zero, driver_for_each_device() can still return -EINVAL,

Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-01 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > Greg, > > 0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from > driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree? No. > 1) Commit 4a7fb6363f ("add __must_check to device management code") > added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(),

Re: Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-08-01 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:35:13PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: Greg, 0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree? No. 1) Commit 4a7fb6363f (add __must_check to device management code) added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(), seven years

Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-07-31 Thread Paul Bolle
Greg, 0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree? 1) Commit 4a7fb6363f ("add __must_check to device management code") added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(), seven years ago. But of the seventeen current users of that function just one

Can we drop __must_check from driver_for_each_device()?

2013-07-31 Thread Paul Bolle
Greg, 0) Summary: I think __must_check can be dropped from driver_for_each_device(). Do you agree? 1) Commit 4a7fb6363f (add __must_check to device management code) added __must_check to driver_for_each_device(), seven years ago. But of the seventeen current users of that function just one