Re: [PATCH 1/3] ring_buffer: Change some static functions to void

[Google]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 11:34:16 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 09:46:50 +0100
> Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:59:27 +0100
> > > Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > The results of some static functions are not used. Change the
> > > > type of these function to void and remove unnecessary returns.
> > > >
> > > > No functional change intended.  
> > >
> > > NAK, instead of dropping the errors, please handle it on the caller side.  
> > 
> > I was under the impression that the intention of these two functions
> > is to warn if there is any corruption in data pages detected. Please
> > note that the patch has no effect on code size, as the compiler is
> > smart enough to drop unused return values by itself. So, the change is
> > mostly cosmetic as I was just bothered by unused returns. I'm not
> > versed enough in the code to introduce additional error handling, so
> > considering its minimal impact, the patch can just be dropped.
> > 
> 
> I'm not against the change.
> 
> Masami,
> 
> I don't think we need to check the return values, as when these checks
> fail, it triggers RB_WARN_ON() which disables the ring buffer involved, and
> that should stop further progress of other calls to the affected ring
> buffer.

Ah, so the RB_WARN_ON() has a side effect which stops all further operations.
OK, I got it.

Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>

> 
> -- Steve
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>