On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, at 16:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 03:57:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The sysfs_create_link() return code is marked as __must_check, but the
>> module_add_driver() function tries hard to not care, by assigning the
>> return code to a variable. When building with 'make W=1', gcc still
>> warns because this variable is only assigned but not used:
>>
>> drivers/base/module.c: In function 'module_add_driver':
>> drivers/base/module.c:36:6: warning: variable 'no_warn' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>>
>> Rework the code to properly unwind and return the error code to the
>> caller. My reading of the original code was that it tries to
>> not fail when the links already exist, so keep ignoring -EEXIST
>> errors.
>
>> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-modules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Wondering if you can move these to be after --- to avoid polluting commit
> message. This will have the same effect and be archived on lore. But on
> pros side it will unload the commit message(s) from unneeded noise.
Done
>
>> + error = module_add_driver(drv->owner, drv);
>> + if (error) {
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: failed to create module links for %s\n",
>> + __func__, drv->name);
>
> What's wrong with pr_err()? Even if it's not a style used, in a new pieces of
> code this can be improved beforehand. So, we will reduce a technical debt, and
> not adding to it.
I think that would be more confusing, and would rather keep the
style consistent. There is no practical difference here.
>> +int module_add_driver(struct module *mod, struct device_driver *drv)
>> {
>> char *driver_name;
>> - int no_warn;
>> + int ret;
>
> I would move it...
>
>> struct module_kobject *mk = NULL;
>
> ...to be here.
Done
Arnd
