Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.

[Michael <macallan%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Hello,

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 15:15:19 -0700
John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost> wrote:

> On Jul 10,  9:37pm, David Holland wrote:
> } On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 08:45:15PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote:
> }  > } The substance of that reservation is that there's not much point doing
> }  > } it without also taking the time to correct the behavior, i.e., back
> }  > } out properly if something fails. And that requires attention, not just
> }  > } mechanical changes.
> }  > 
> }  >      Sure, but that's something that can be done over time, driver
> }  > by driver.  The first step is the infrastructure support (changing
> }  > the return type, having autoconf respond intelligently, etc.).
> }  > The very first step of changing the return type is a purely mechanical
> }  > change.
> } 
> } Well, yes, but if you change the return type mechanically first then
> } you end up with a thousand or two attach functions that *look* like
> } they handle errors but actually don't.
> 
>      Thanks for the reminder.  I meant to add to my list of steps
> that the xxx_attach() function needs to be flagged somehow (possibly
> with a standardised comment) to show that it still needs to be
> audited.  The flag is something that needs to be easily found
> mechanically so that lists can be made.
> 
>      Also, I expect that some drivers will never be audited/tested
> since there are drivers for ancient hardware that very few people
> now own/use.  Of course, that might be a hint that the driver should
> be retired (or, at least commented out in GENERIC).

Maybe make that marker a cpp macro that can throw a
warning/error/whatever controlled by a kernel config option. I'd like
to fix all my drivers but I'd probably forget about half of them.

have fun
Michael