Johannes Berg wrote: > 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. > Oops... I meant to write rfkill_set_hw_state(), I think you copied me. Ok. So then why is the _sw_ variant marked __must_check? That looks like a mistake. I don't see what I can sensibly do with the return value. Unless you want EPO to veto a firmware-initiated enable? Thanks Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
