Re: [PATCH] Mark res_counter_charge(_locked) with __must_check

[Pavel Emelyanov]

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:05:44 +0400
> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Ignoring theirs return value may result in counter underflow
>> in the future - when the value charged will be uncharged (or in
>> "leaks" - when the value is not uncharged).
>>
>> This also prevents from using charging routines to decrement the
>> counter value (i.e. uncharge it) ;)
>>
>> (Current code works OK with res_counter, however :) )
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
> nice check :)

Thanks!

> BTW, res_counter_charge_locked() should be extern function ?

What do you mean? It is extern as well as the res_counter_charge
and uncharge ones are, but functions may have forward declarations
w/o extern keyword AFAIK ;)

> Thanks,
> -Kame
> 
> 

--
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/