On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Michael Ellerman <mich...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 18:15 +0800, Li Yang wrote: >> warning: ignoring return value of 'device_add', declared with attribute >> warn_unused_result >> warning: ignoring return value of 'sysfs_create_bin_file', declared with >> attribute warn_unused_result >> >> Signed-off-by: Li Yang <le...@freescale.com> >> --- >> drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c | 5 ++++- >> drivers/rapidio/rio-sysfs.c | 6 ++++-- >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c b/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c >> index 74d0bfa..9309e24 100644 >> --- a/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c >> +++ b/drivers/rapidio/rio-scan.c >> @@ -265,7 +265,10 @@ static void rio_route_set_ops(struct rio_dev *rdev) >> */ >> static void __devinit rio_add_device(struct rio_dev *rdev) >> { >> - device_add(&rdev->dev); >> + int err; >> + >> + err = device_add(&rdev->dev); >> + WARN_ON(err); >> >> spin_lock(&rio_global_list_lock); >> list_add_tail(&rdev->global_list, &rio_devices); > > Is that really useful? Why not return the error to rio_setup_device() > which can tell it's caller.
IMHO, when device_add() fails the system is quite broken. So the value is very limited for it to fail cleanly, which need some effort to implement. I can add it if you insist. - Leo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev