On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:26:28 PDT, "Justin P. Mattock" said:ignoring the return value is one option, but is it the best one? probably not. As for return ret; the option did cross my mind, but figured to do what I had done by removing the retvaldiff --git a/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c b/drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c
- retval = device_create_file(&intf->dev,&dev_attr_interface);
intf->sysfs_files_created = 1;
What should the code do if device_create_file() manages to fail? Yes, ignoring
the return value is one option, but is it the best one? 'return ret;' might be
another one. Somebody who understands this code and has more caffeine than me
should look this over.
(Nothing personal Justin - it's just my opinion that *anytime* we have a patch
that remove a check for a return code, it needs to justify that ignoring the
return code is appropriate).