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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210319143231.25500-1-olaf@aepfle.de> <20210325121606.6a2e4e00.olaf@aepfle.de>
In-Reply-To: <20210325121606.6a2e4e00.olaf@aepfle.de>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 01:55:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARPs97+eQKMop9cYCs=D4Kwsf_5pq-614OUxT2iZptueg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: enforce -Werror=unused-result
To:     Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Cc:     Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:16 PM Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:
>
> Am Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:32:31 +0100
> schrieb Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>:
>
> > It is a hard error if a return value is ignored.
>
> The automated builds found only a single error, in load_em86().


What about  drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c  ?


> Let me know if there are other reasons why the patch was rejected.
>
> Olaf


I got a lot of complaints in the last trial.

It is easy to send a patch like this, but difficult to
make sure that I will not break any CI tests.

Over time, I started to believe keeping this as a warning
is OK.

The same problem happens when you add a new __must_check
annotation. You end up with fixing all the call-sites in advance.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada