Message-ID: <1381190594.2081.228.camel@joe-AO722>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add check for sscanf without return use
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:03:14 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20131007165626.be437f74a4ba39e2be21af55@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1381189523.2081.225.camel@joe-AO722>
	 <20131007165626.be437f74a4ba39e2be21af55@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 783
Lines: 24

On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 16:56 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:45:23 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > Naked use sscanf can be troublesome.
> 
> It would be helpful to expand on "troublesome"?

Dunno, you either know or the couple of paragraphs
it takes to explain with examples won't really be
too helpful in a commit log.

> > Add a warning when the sscanf return value is not used.
> Maybe it should be __must_check?

Maybe.

That might be easier but there'll be a couple
hundred new build warnings.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/