Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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. >
If something like a PCI power management function fails then it will likely cause suspend or resume to malfunction, and we have a lot of such problems. So we-the-developers do need to hear about it when such functions fail. So either a) each and every driver has to blurt a printk (dumb) or b) we stick a warning and a backtrace in the failing function (better). - 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/
