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 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
