From: Jean Delvare on
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:20:39 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 04:40 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > __process_new_adapter() calls i2c_do_add_adapter() which always returns
> > 0. Why should I check the return value of bus_for_each_drv() when I
> > know it will always be 0 by construction?
> >
> > Also note that the same function is also called through
> > bus_for_each_dev() somewhere else in i2c-core, and there is no warning
> > there because bus_for_each_dev() is not marked __must_check. How
> > consistent is this? If bus_for_each_dev() is OK without __must_check,
> > then I can't see why bus_for_each_drv() wouldn't be.
>
> Well, I would advocate removing the __must_check then.

I have just sent a patch to LKML doing exactly this.

--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/