On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:17:34PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > If you are suggesting some sort of special code annotation that the tool > > would understand, I am open to that. But I'm not aware of any even > > vaguely standard way of marking up a particular function call to > > indicate it will not return an error. > > I cannot yet say if some annotation would work, we, Sudip and me, need to > investigate. It could be that something like, assert(!IS_ERR(tt)), is > sufficient to let the tools know that they can safely assume that the > path they are complaining about is not possible. > > We could make the assert() a nop, so it would not effect the resulting > object code in any way. Things like assert() have been rejected numberous times in the past in the kernel, good luck with that :) greg k-h
