Re: [PATCH] Illustration of warning explosion silliness

From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 00:19:58 EST

Andrew Morton wrote:
And it's not sufficient to say "gee, I can't think of any reason why this
handler would return an error, so I'll design its callers to assume that". It is _much_ better to design the callers to assume that callees _can_
fail, and to stick the `return 0;' into the terminal callee. Because
things can change.

huh? You're going off on a tangent. I agree with the above, just like I already agreed that SCSI needs better error checking.

You're ignoring the API issue at hand. Let me say it again for the cheap seats: "search" You search a list, and stick a pointer somewhere when found. No hardware touched. No allocations. Real world. There is an example of usage in the kernel today.

Yes, SCSI needs better error checking. Yes, device_for_each_child() actors _may_ return errors. No, that doesn't imply device_for_each_child() actors must be FORCED BY DESIGN to return error codes. It's just walking a list. The current implementation and API is fine... save for the "__must_check" marker itself. The actor CAN return an error code via the current API.

CAN, not MUST. (using RFC language)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at