Re: [PATCH] Illustration of warning explosion silliness

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 00:36:59 EST

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:19:36 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the bugs which this exposed are a far, far
more serious matter than a few false-positive warnings which need

> 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.

If it's called in that fashion then the caller should still check the
device_for_each_child() return value to find out if it actually got a

Now it could be that the mysterious caller to which you refer uses the
non-NULLness of some pointer to work out if a match occurred. Well shrug -
add a BUG_ON(!device_for_each_child_return_value) or something.

Or write a new version of device_for_each_child() which returns void and
don't tell anyone about it.

But let's not encourage error-ignoring.

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