On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:08:01 -0700 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 16:47 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 04:41:22PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > Hmm, this inconsistency seems to be in more functions. I would divide > > > it into three categories: > [] > > No. _Any_ caller that decides to report that error to its caller is fucking > > broken. We had some cases like that. > [] > > And let's make seq_printf and friends return void. Any breakage we miss > > on grep will be caught by compiler. Enough is enough. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/11/8 > Since you like posting links: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/11/76 If you want to resurrect your patches, go ahead. I'll pull them into my list. Probably should rename seq_overflow() to seq_is_full(), which makes it sound less of an error. And as Al noted, only fix what's there (just the places that check the return values). Don't add anything else. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
