On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:04:03 +0300, Rami Rosen said: > Well, there are rare cases in the kernel when you add (void) before calling > the method. For example, if the method returns int or other type and you > want to emphasize that you are aware of that and deliberately not check the > return value. > See for example: > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbxfload.c#L156 The fact something is done in the tree doesn't mean it's *correct*. If you check the tree, there are 80 instances of it being cast to (void), and 9 instances of 'status ='. Now if you go look at the source of the function in drivers/acpi/acpica/utmutex.c we discover that there's 3 or 4 possible return(..) conditions in the function (one only if _DEBUG is defined). Looking at the places that places that bother checking the return code, they all look something like this: nsxfeval.c: status = acpi_ut_release_mutex(ACPI_MTX_NAMESPACE); nsxfeval.c- if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) { nsxfeval.c- return (status); nsxfeval.c- } Now, given that 80 other sites don't bother checking, there's a good chance that these 9 call sites shouldn't bother either, and the calling code should be changed to not check the status either, and then make the function definition a void. (Of course a more careful examination of the code should be undertaken, but it's more likely that there's 9 sites that are checking a return code that doesn't actually matter than the chances that it really *does* matter in 9 places but not in 80 others...
Attachment:
pgpcna9CxjDHQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
