On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:38 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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...>); > + Miguel So I just checked `__cold`, and `__cold` is all over the board in style. I see it: 1. before anything fs/btrfs/super.c#L101 2. after static before return type (what you recommend) fs/btrfs/super.c#L2318 3. after return type fs/btrfs/inode.c#L9426 Can we pick a style and enforce it via checkpatch? (It's probably not fun to check for each function attribute in include/linux/compiler_attributes.h). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
