Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genhd must_check warning fix
In-Reply-To: <200803121507.39347.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803120803530.12341@woody.linux-foundation.org>
References: <20080312001317.D68A526F991@magilla.localdomain> <200803121440.26356.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <47D753AC.8080206@garzik.org> <200803121507.39347.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LFD 882 2007-12-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 846
Lines: 22


On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> If you tune out the must_check warnings, then how is that better than
> not having them at all? In either case, you'd have missed this genhd
> bug(let).

Quite frankly, there have historically been too many people who just added 
"must_check" to their function prototypes because they thought they were 
oh-so-important. Which means that at least _I_ tend to just ignore them 
(and have asked people to remove some when they get too annoying).

So I'm not at all surprised that people tune them out. They have become 
debased by being overused.

		Linus
--
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/