On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 10:36:55AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 03:57:07PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 05:24:20PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 10:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > + udev = to_usb_device(dev); > > > > > + if (usb_device_match_id(udev, new_udriver->id_table) == NULL && > > > > > + (!new_udriver->match || new_udriver->match(udev) != 0)) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > + (void)!device_reprobe(dev); > > > > > > > > What's that '!' doing hiding in there? It doesn't affect the final > > > > outcome, but it sure looks weird -- if people notice it at all. > > > > > > It's how we stop gcc from complaining about the warn_unused_result > > > attribute on device_reprobe()... (void) is enough with clang, but not > > > with gcc. > > > > Hmmm. Maybe this is an indication that device_reprobe() doesn't really > > need to be __must_check. > > > > Greg, do you know why it's annotated this way? > > Because you really should pass up the return value if an error happens > here. Why do we think it is safe to ignore? > > And that "(void)!" is not ok, if the annotation is safe to ignore, then > we need to remove the annotation, don't work around stuff like this > without at the very least, a comment saying why it is ok. I suppose Bastien could log an error message at that point. There isn't much else to do. Alan Stern
