Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add check for sscanf without return use

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 18:10 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 16:56 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:45:23 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Naked use sscanf can be troublesome.
> >>
> >> It would be helpful to expand on "troublesome"?
> >
> > Dunno, you either know or the couple of paragraphs
> > it takes to explain with examples won't really be
> > too helpful in a commit log.
> 
> It would be helpful to me, since I don't write code with sscanf every
> day.  A URL to an LKML description or something would be enough if the
> commit log size is the concern.

I sent a V2 patch to Andrew and mm using this commit log:

Naked use sscanf can be troublesome because the pointed
to variables may not have been set.

Add a warning when the sscanf return value is not used.

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
---
V2: Use the $Compare variable instead of just == or !=
    There are some tests that use < and >