On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:29:52 EDT, Alan Stern said: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > > > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:26:28 PDT, "Justin P. Mattock" said: > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c b/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c > > > > > if (alt->string) > > > - retval = device_create_file(&intf->dev, &dev_attr_interface); > > > + device_create_file(&intf->dev, &dev_attr_interface); > > > intf->sysfs_files_created = 1; > > > return 0; > > Justin, did you try compiling your new code? Those unused values are > there because device_create_file is declared as __must_check. > > > What should the code do if device_create_file() manages to fail? Yes, ignoring > > the return value is one option, but is it the best one? 'return ret;' might be > > another one. Somebody who understands this code and has more caffeine than me > > should look this over. > > Failure to create a file in sysfs is almost never fatal and usually not > even dangerous. Ignoring the error is generally better than failing > the entire operation. Then why the __must_check attribute if it's usually ignorable? I thought that was reserved for functions that you damned sight better well check for errors because bad things are afoot otherwise?
Attachment:
pgp09lefoVLFW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
