Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:27:35 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check
Message-ID: <20191009122735.17415f9c@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdk3OTaAVmbV9Cu+Dzg8zuojjU6ENZfu4cUPaKS2a58d3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75f70e5e-9ece-d6d1-a2c5-2f3ad79b9ccb@web.de>
        <20191009110943.7ff3a08a@gandalf.local.home>
        <CAKwvOdk3OTaAVmbV9Cu+Dzg8zuojjU6ENZfu4cUPaKS2a58d3w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:13:17 -0700
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:09 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0200
> > Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
> >  
> > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0200
> > >
> > > Several functions return values with which useful data processing
> > > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then.
> > > Thus use the annotation “__must_check” in the shown function declarations.
> > >
> > > Add also corresponding parameter names for adjusted functions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > >  
> >
> > I'm curious. How many warnings showed up when you applied this patch?  
> 
> I got zero for x86_64 and arm64 defconfig builds of linux-next with
> this applied.  Hopefully that's not an argument against the more
> liberal application of it?  I view __must_check as a good thing, and
> encourage its application, unless someone can show that a certain
> function would be useful to call without it.

Not at all, I was just curious, because I would have expected patches
to fix possible bugs with it.

-- Steve