[PATCH v2 10/29] res_counter: don't force return value checking in res_counter_charge_nofail

From: Glauber Costa
Date: Fri May 11 2012 - 13:49:19 EST

Since we will succeed with the allocation no matter what, there
isn't the need to use __must_check with it. It can very well
be optional.

Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
include/linux/res_counter.h | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/res_counter.h b/include/linux/res_counter.h
index da81af0..f7621cf 100644
--- a/include/linux/res_counter.h
+++ b/include/linux/res_counter.h
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ int __must_check res_counter_charge_locked(struct res_counter *counter,
unsigned long val);
int __must_check res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter,
unsigned long val, struct res_counter **limit_fail_at);
-int __must_check res_counter_charge_nofail(struct res_counter *counter,
+int res_counter_charge_nofail(struct res_counter *counter,
unsigned long val, struct res_counter **limit_fail_at);


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