Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:19:36 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |