Hi Laurent,
Thanks for a reminder. Please see inline.
W dniu 22.11.2016 o 18:27, Laurent Pinchart pisze:
Hi Andrzej and Julia,
Could one of you please submit a patch to fix this ?
On Thursday 17 Sep 2015 13:18:04 Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
Hi Julia,
W dniu 17.09.2015 o 10:57, Julia Lawall pisze:
Coccinelle suggests the following patch. But the code is curious. Is the
function expected to always return a failure value?
As a matter of fact it seems it should not return anything at all,
because...
Thank you for catching this. The function is not expected to always
return a failure value. Fortunately it does not matter anyway because
...because
the return value of the drop_link() operation is silently ignored by
And the Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt says here:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt#n397
"When unlink(2) is called on the symbolic link, the source item is
notified via the ->drop_link() method. Like the ->drop_item() method,
this is a void function and cannot return failure."
The ->drop_item() is indeed a void function, the ->drop_link() is
actually not. This, together with the fact that the value of ->drop_link()
is silently ignored suggests, that it is the ->drop_link() return
type that should be corrected and changed to void.
@Joel: What is your opinion? Should return type be changed to void?
Is there any reason why it should still be declared int?
I'm sending a copy of this mail to target-devel and linux-nvme,
because other potentially affected users of configfs live there.
AP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
