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: <20211108101157.15189-1-bp@alien8.de> <20211108101157.15189-36-bp@alien8.de>
 <CAMuHMdW4fv4LN6oDS6qgYodf74_NvbzMxQfRbtnS-mn_D+u7Kg@mail.gmail.com> <YYkq7WbmNXNgiqv9@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <YYkq7WbmNXNgiqv9@zn.tnic>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:03:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUULHGmsAu1f=4of1A+ABecH89PRxDqRGewqhG7bbL3-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 35/42] sh: Check notifier registration return value
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Borislav,

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:49 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 02:31:41PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Do you think these can actually fail?
>
> Hmm, maybe you missed the 0th message. Does this explain it:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211108101924.15759-1-bp@alien8.de
>
> ?

Thanks, but that still doesn't explain why we need to add the check,
for something that IMHO cannot fail, in a caller that cannot do
anything in the very unlikely event that he call would ever start
to fail?

The clue is the addition of __must_check in "[PATCH v0 42/42] notifier:
Return an error when callback is already registered"
(https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211108101157.15189-43-bp@alien8.de/).

I'll reply to that one...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds