Re: [lvc-project] [PATCH] tracing: remove unreachable trace_array_put

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:19:05 +0300
Nikita Kiryushin <kiryushin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 7/16/24 12:45, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> > Yes, but there is another possible modification: replacement of call to
> > nonseekable_open() by a call to some other function that returns error.
> > Current code is already ready for such modification.  
> 
> The change of which function is called would change the behavior indeed, but,
> TBH, I do not see it as a valid point: If we assume that nonseekable_open() changes to something else in the future, we may assume as well that some other call will be
> added later with a risk of resource leaking. This is a thing, that whoever would do
> such changes should be careful about.
> 
> For me, the code as it is now, is not uniform with the other places that use
> nonseekable_open().

The point is moot. If something returns a value, even if it says it
will never return failure, there's no harm in checking it. If we ignore
the return value, that is a unneeded coupling of design between the
function and its users.

It does no harm in checking the value, so I rather just keep doing so.

-- Steve