linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723au: Fixes unnecessary return warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 30 Jan 2016 14:09:08 +1100
From:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>,
	Haneen Mohammed <hamohammed.sa@...il.com>,
	Andreas Ruprecht <andreas.ruprecht@....de>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723au: Fixes unnecessary return warning

Hi Joe,

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 10:17 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com> writes:
>> > > This patch fixes checkpatch.pl warning in rtw_mlme_ext.c file.
>> > > WARNING: void function return statements are not generally useful
> []
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> []
>> > > @@ -2657,7 +2657,6 @@ static void issue_probersp(struct rtw_adapter *padapter, unsigned char *da)
>> > >
>> > >       dump_mgntframe23a(padapter, pmgntframe);
>> > >
>> > > -     return;
>> > >  }
>> >
>> > If you insist on pushing this rather unncessary change, please do it
>> > properly, and remove the blank line before the return statement as well.
>>
>> As Jes said, you need to remove the blank lines before the returns
>> too. checkpatch should have picked this up, you did run the patch
>> through checkpatch before you sent it, right?
>
> checkpatch doesn't pick this up.
>
> If you'd like to make it do so, you're welcome to try
> but it's likely a bit more complicated than it appears.

I meant the extra blank lines, not the useless return statements.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@...il.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/