Even if it's not critical, the avoidance of checking the error code
from devm_mutex_init() call today diminishes the point of using devm
variant of it. Tomorrow it may even leak something. Enforce all callers
checking the return value through the compiler.

As devm_mutex_init() itself is a macro which can not be annotated,
annotate __devm_mutex_init() instead.
Unfortunately __must_check/warn_unused_result don't propagate through
statement expression. To work around this move the statement expression
into the argument list of the call to __devm_mutex_init() so
devm_mutex_init() directly expands to __devm_mutex_init().

Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
---
 include/linux/mutex.h | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
index 2bf91b57591b49e4668752e773419ae945f124da..3ab77d0d85bd54a700e99694fd4bcf1d310175bd 100644
--- a/include/linux/mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
@@ -126,11 +126,12 @@ do {							\
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
 
-int __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
+int __must_check __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
 
 #else
 
-static inline int __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
+static inline int __must_check __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev,
+						 struct mutex *lock)
 {
 	/*
 	 * When CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is off mutex_destroy() is just a nop so
@@ -141,13 +142,12 @@ static inline int __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
 
 #endif
 
-#define devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex)			\
-({							\
-	typeof(mutex) mutex_ = (mutex);			\
-							\
-	mutex_init(mutex_);				\
-	__devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex_);			\
-})
+#define devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex) __devm_mutex_init(dev, ({	\
+	typeof(mutex) mutex_ = (mutex);				\
+								\
+	mutex_init(mutex_);					\
+	mutex_;							\
+}))
 
 /*
  * See kernel/locking/mutex.c for detailed documentation of these APIs.

---
base-commit: e70140ba0d2b1a30467d4af6bcfe761327b9ec95
change-id: 20241031-must_check-devm_mutex_init-cac583bda8fe

Best regards,
-- 
Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>

On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Even if it's not critical, the avoidance of checking the error code
> from devm_mutex_init() call today diminishes the point of using devm
> variant of it. Tomorrow it may even leak something. Enforce all callers
> checking the return value through the compiler.
> 
> As devm_mutex_init() itself is a macro which can not be annotated,
> annotate __devm_mutex_init() instead.
> Unfortunately __must_check/warn_unused_result don't propagate through
> statement expression. To work around this move the statement expression
> into the argument list of the call to __devm_mutex_init() so
> devm_mutex_init() directly expands to __devm_mutex_init().

Did it go anywhere?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On 2025-01-16 17:45:30+0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Even if it's not critical, the avoidance of checking the error code
> > from devm_mutex_init() call today diminishes the point of using devm
> > variant of it. Tomorrow it may even leak something. Enforce all callers
> > checking the return value through the compiler.
> > 
> > As devm_mutex_init() itself is a macro which can not be annotated,
> > annotate __devm_mutex_init() instead.
> > Unfortunately __must_check/warn_unused_result don't propagate through
> > statement expression. To work around this move the statement expression
> > into the argument list of the call to __devm_mutex_init() so
> > devm_mutex_init() directly expands to __devm_mutex_init().
> 
> Did it go anywhere?

Nope. I'll resend it after -rc1.
Maybe a Reviewed-by also helps.