lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Illustration of warning explosion silliness
Andrew Morton wrote:
> And it's not sufficient to say "gee, I can't think of any reason why this
> handler would return an error, so I'll design its callers to assume that".
> It is _much_ better to design the callers to assume that callees _can_
> fail, and to stick the `return 0;' into the terminal callee. Because
> things can change.

huh? You're going off on a tangent. I agree with the above, just like
I already agreed that SCSI needs better error checking.

You're ignoring the API issue at hand. Let me say it again for the
cheap seats: "search" You search a list, and stick a pointer somewhere
when found. No hardware touched. No allocations. Real world. There
is an example of usage in the kernel today.

Yes, SCSI needs better error checking. Yes, device_for_each_child()
actors _may_ return errors. No, that doesn't imply
device_for_each_child() actors must be FORCED BY DESIGN to return error
codes. It's just walking a list. The current implementation and API is
fine... save for the "__must_check" marker itself. The actor CAN return
an error code via the current API.

CAN, not MUST. (using RFC language)

Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-28 06:23    [W:4.549 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site