From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933480Ab3BLRTJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:19:09 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:52400 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933383Ab3BLRTH (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:19:07 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] gpiolib: use descriptors internally Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:18:48 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-5-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , Grant Likely , Alexandre Courbot , "linux-arch" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alexandre Courbot , Mark Brown , Mike Turquette References: <1359822572-26009-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <20130212155927.GE6088@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: <20130212155927.GE6088@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201302121718.48244.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Mt2YkcoVjtL0S8RtBFXqeSiooxt/u7SAdfLAd0o79B3 lN3UuiiRkJTxvUqwQ0QP/Gp6bHtsT5S7yA5Ym/rKbGxn1HZx/N ZxkdYU7BTuJrmBAZr0QpRDaZMpUxdpROwg9ApMEdxkGGHh6J6D 33jjILBawrQxswlasyZIT/y+bP+72mmR9IRKYz4BbmYM8YURFS 3Hnl9xlvtCYX9llqmd9VEC3PRBus8R1hA7XDHsXA4Y5D1xt6bh WpD7k9QIjAdTYGQ84cdSKy3KyjIlr1k35P/Q6R52gGnghWQy3o Vaw0kCDIIYrM0322JqF4N1nLfSKFeZLo/mQoXSRRcEvEhQK4W3 NmS9UU8LfaXMWkA8IdKA= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 12 February 2013, Paul Mundt wrote: > > While I do get the point... I chatted with Grant about it and > > I want to talk to some toolchain people about this to see if > > pointers containing potential error codes can somehow be > > "flagged" by the compiler so we can enforce error checking on > > them. (It may sound a bit utopic...) > > > At the very least you can __must_check annotate, although that's probably > still a bit coarser grained than what you're after. There is an idea: we could have variants of __must_check for different classes of returns: NULL error, ERR_PTR, negative integer on error, ... Arnd