Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: 2dbJygXuIEYwJ0bnaKAHcI7uth4OMfh+9cjrZtJWmBSZWh5Rq103kUfNNoYLCT/f3TRZB7N6NS
 rPdpsJlsco/Q==
IronPort-SDR: FYBTzDiLsChTNrLw3hHvz28OzSVrkrJq8fZ3fmZemIFpgcRzm/vFTFdGL6rAmjxRYEznSjwypt
 5XkO1iz008lw==
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:16:15 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Annotate dev_err_probe() with
 __must_check
Message-ID: <20200826141615.GN1891694@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <CGME20200826104505eucas1p2e6ac15abfb6104fdbc4229fc148cbe02@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
 <20200826104459.81979-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <1e3708e5-24f2-18e0-40c0-284853171338@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1e3708e5-24f2-18e0-40c0-284853171338@samsung.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:23:40PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 26.08.2020 12:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > We have got already new users of this API which interpret it differently
> > and miss the opportunity to optimize their code.
> >
> > In order to avoid similar cases in the future, annotate dev_err_probe()
> > with __must_check.
> 
> 
> There are many cases where __must_check can be annoying, for example:
> 
> ret = ...;
> 
> if (ret < 0) {
> 
>  ??? dev_err_probe(...);
> 
>  ??? goto cleanup;

Can be
	ret = dev_err_probe(...);

> }
> 
> 
> Or (less frequently):
> 
> ptr = ...;
> 
> if (IS_ERR(ptr)) {
> 
>  ??? dev_err_probe(...);
> 
>  ??? return ptr;

...which basically should be something like

	return dev_err_probe_ptr(...);

> }
> 
> 
> Of course in both cases one can add workarounds, but I am not sure what 
> is better.

Me neither, but definitely API in current state allows to make code suboptimal.
So, up to Greg and Rafael to decide.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko