[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B17793F.7050708@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:39:27 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>, Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] selinux: remove an unreachable line
Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 04:31:36PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 02:41 -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>>> This line is unreachable, remove it.
>>> []
>>>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/mls.c b/security/selinux/ss/mls.c
>>>> index b5407f1..a2f1034 100644
>>>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/mls.c
>>>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/mls.c
>>>> @@ -544,7 +544,6 @@ int mls_compute_sid(struct context *scontext,
>>>> default:
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>> I think it's better to remove the default case.
>>>
>> This is totally a personal taste, I think.
>> Either is OK. James, any comments?
>
> I think the last unreachable return might also stop certain
> versions of gcc complaining about control reaching the end of
> a non void function.
Hmm, aren't those version of gcc buggy? Here we have return values
in all cases of 'switch', it shouldn't complain...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists