Re: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:13:17 -0700
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:09 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0200
> > Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >  
> > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0200
> > >
> > > Several functions return values with which useful data processing
> > > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then.
> > > Thus use the annotation â__must_checkâ in the shown function declarations.
> > >
> > > Add also corresponding parameter names for adjusted functions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >  
> >
> > I'm curious. How many warnings showed up when you applied this patch?  
> 
> I got zero for x86_64 and arm64 defconfig builds of linux-next with
> this applied.  Hopefully that's not an argument against the more
> liberal application of it?  I view __must_check as a good thing, and
> encourage its application, unless someone can show that a certain
> function would be useful to call without it.

Not at all, I was just curious, because I would have expected patches
to fix possible bugs with it.

-- Steve