[PATCH 10/13] selftests: net: Work around build error seen with -Werror

Guenter Roeck posted 13 patches 2 months ago
[PATCH 10/13] selftests: net: Work around build error seen with -Werror
Posted by Guenter Roeck 2 months ago
Fix

ksft.h: In function ‘ksft_ready’:
ksft.h:27:9: error: ignoring return value of ‘write’ declared with attribute ‘warn_unused_result’

ksft.h: In function ‘ksft_wait’:
ksft.h:51:9: error: ignoring return value of ‘read’ declared with attribute ‘warn_unused_result’

by checking and then ignoring the return value of the affected functions.

Fixes: 2b6d490b82668 ("selftests: drv-net: Factor out ksft C helpers")
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/net/lib/ksft.h | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/lib/ksft.h b/tools/testing/selftests/net/lib/ksft.h
index 17dc34a612c6..b3d3f7e28e98 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/lib/ksft.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/lib/ksft.h
@@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ static inline void ksft_ready(void)
 		fd = STDOUT_FILENO;
 	}
 
-	write(fd, msg, sizeof(msg));
+	if (write(fd, msg, sizeof(msg)))
+		;
 	if (fd != STDOUT_FILENO)
 		close(fd);
 }
@@ -48,7 +49,8 @@ static inline void ksft_wait(void)
 		fd = STDIN_FILENO;
 	}
 
-	read(fd, &byte, sizeof(byte));
+	if (read(fd, &byte, sizeof(byte)))
+		;
 	if (fd != STDIN_FILENO)
 		close(fd);
 }
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 10/13] selftests: net: Work around build error seen with -Werror
Posted by Jakub Kicinski 2 months ago
On Thu,  4 Dec 2025 08:17:24 -0800 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> -	write(fd, msg, sizeof(msg));
> +	if (write(fd, msg, sizeof(msg)))
> +		;

At least add an perror here ?
Re: [PATCH 10/13] selftests: net: Work around build error seen with -Werror
Posted by Guenter Roeck 2 months ago
On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 08:30:29AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu,  4 Dec 2025 08:17:24 -0800 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > -	write(fd, msg, sizeof(msg));
> > +	if (write(fd, msg, sizeof(msg)))
> > +		;
> 
> At least add an perror here ?

Makes sense. I'll do that in all patches unless someone has a better idea.

Thanks,
Guenter