Hi Hans, Alexandra, On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Alexandra, > > On 11/2/23 15:11, Alexandra Diupina wrote: > > media_entity_pads_init() will not return 0 only if the > > 2nd parameter >= MEDIA_ENTITY_MAX_PADS (512), but 1 is > > passed, so checking the return value is redundant > > Generally speaking functions which can fail should always be > error-checked even if their invocation today happen to be > such that they will not fail. > > Either the invocation or the function itself my change > causing it to fail in the future. Which is why we want > to keep the error checks. > > But maybe media_entity_pads_init() is special and > does not need to be error checked. > > Sakari, Laurent do you have any opinion on this ? > > > Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE. > > This feels like a false positive of the tool to me, > but lets wait and see what Sakari or Laurent have > to say. I agree with Hans: this function today may not fail with the parameters passed to it but it may happen in the future. In general it's good to check a return value of a function that returns one: if that function is changed, no-one will go through the callers as long as the arguments and the return value remain the same. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
