On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 09:13 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:09 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0200 Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote: [] > > > Several functions return values with which useful data processing > > > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then. > > > Thus use the annotation “__must_check” in the shown function declarations. [] > > I'm curious. How many warnings showed up when you applied this patch? > > I got zero for x86_64 and arm64 defconfig builds of linux-next with > this applied. Hopefully that's not an argument against the more > liberal application of it? I view __must_check as a good thing, and > encourage its application, unless someone can show that a certain > function would be useful to call without it. stylistic trivia, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the patch as I generally avoid reading Markus' patches. I believe __must_check is best placed before the return type as that makes grep for function return type easier to parse. i.e. prefer [static inline] __must_check <type> <function>(<args...>); over [static inline] <type> __must_check <function>(<args...>);
