On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 14:29 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: > API nit: > > * This function tells the rfkill core that the device is capable of > * remembering soft blocks (which it is notified of via the set_block > * method) -- this means that the driver may ignore the return value > * from rfkill_set_hw_state(). > > Doesn't this conflict with the declaration of rfkill_set_sw_state() as > __must_check? Yeah, in a way it does, but I figure it's rare enough that those who really can ignore it can write (void) rfkill_set_sw_state(...) Don't really have a strong opinion, it just seemed the mistake in the other direction would be more common. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
