On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Peter Senna Tschudin > <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hey Ezequiel, >> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hey Peter, >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin >>> <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> - no_signal = stv090x_chk_signal(state); >>>> + (void) stv090x_chk_signal(state); >>> >>> Why are you casting return to void? I can't see there is a reason to it. >> The idea is to tell the compiler that I know that stv090x_chk_signal() >> return a value and I want to ignore it. It is to prevent the compiler >> to issue warn_unused_result. I found two ways of doing it. First is >> casting the return to void, second is to change the function >> definition adding the macro __must_check defined at <linux/compiler.c> >> like on: > > This would be true if stv090x_chk_signal() would be declared with __must_check. > But this is not the case, so I think you should try to just ignore the result. > > I'm pretty sure you won't find any warning at all from the compiler. You are right! Thanks. I'll do V3 of the patch. > > Regards, > Ezequiel. -- Peter Senna Tschudin peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx gpg id: 48274C36 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
