On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:00:18PM +0200, 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 <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > 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); Give that there are bunch of users of this call which may or maynot be using this, I think putting this check is too stringent -- ~Vinod -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html