On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 03:57:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
>
> The sysfs_create_link() return code is marked as __must_check, but the
> module_add_driver() function tries hard to not care, by assigning the
> return code to a variable. When building with 'make W=1', gcc still
> warns because this variable is only assigned but not used:
>
> drivers/base/module.c: In function 'module_add_driver':
> drivers/base/module.c:36:6: warning: variable 'no_warn' set but not used
> [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>
> Rework the code to properly unwind and return the error code to the
> caller. My reading of the original code was that it tries to
> not fail when the links already exist, so keep ignoring -EEXIST
> errors.
> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcg...@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-modu...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <raf...@kernel.org>
Wondering if you can move these to be after --- to avoid polluting commit
message. This will have the same effect and be archived on lore. But on
pros side it will unload the commit message(s) from unneeded noise.
...
> + error = module_add_driver(drv->owner, drv);
> + if (error) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: failed to create module links for %s\n",
> + __func__, drv->name);
What's wrong with pr_err()? Even if it's not a style used, in a new pieces of
code this can be improved beforehand. So, we will reduce a technical debt, and
not adding to it.
> + goto out_detach;
> + }
...
> +int module_add_driver(struct module *mod, struct device_driver *drv)
> {
> char *driver_name;
> - int no_warn;
> + int ret;
I would move it...
> struct module_kobject *mk = NULL;
...to be here.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
