On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 09:08 -0700, Joe Perches 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
Hey Al, if you really want this to happen there are a couple hundred uses of the return value that could be inspected/converted. I've cc'd you a couple times now on a few patches that start that conversion. If you're serious about changing the return type for the next release, it'd be useful if you'd ack/nack the approach. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/29/709 -- 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/
