On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Greg KH wrote: > > I fixed up all of the PCI core and USB drivers that were flagged by > these warnings already. Biggest area left is network drivers that I > saw.
The reason I really dislike patches like these is that it causes people to do questionable things. For example, there may be perfectly valid reasons why somebody doesn't care about the result. I don't see much point in forcing people to check the return value of "pci_enable_wake()" for example. There's really no real reason to ever care, as far as I can tell - if it fails, there's nothing you can really do about it anyway. Also, in general, the fact is that things like "pci_set_power_state()" might fail in _theory_, but we just don't care. A driver that doesn't check the return value is in practice as good a driver as one that does, and forcing people to add code that is totally useless in reality - or look at a warning that is irritating - is just not very productive. There are functions where it is really _important_ to check the error return, because they return errors often enough - and the error case is something you have to do something about - that it's good to force people to be aware. But "pci_set_power_state()"? I don't think so. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/