16 Jun
2010
16 Jun
'10
9:45 a.m.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:20:39 -0700, David Daney wrote:
On 06/15/2010 04:40 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
__process_new_adapter() calls i2c_do_add_adapter() which always returns 0. Why should I check the return value of bus_for_each_drv() when I know it will always be 0 by construction?
Also note that the same function is also called through bus_for_each_dev() somewhere else in i2c-core, and there is no warning there because bus_for_each_dev() is not marked __must_check. How consistent is this? If bus_for_each_dev() is OK without __must_check, then I can't see why bus_for_each_drv() wouldn't be.
Well, I would advocate removing the __must_check then.
I have just sent a patch to LKML doing exactly this.
--
Jean Delvare