linux-kernel - Re: [trivial PATCH] arch/x86: Remove unnecessary returns from void function()'s

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]

Message-ID: <4BE9F94A.9000907@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 May 2010 17:41:46 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [trivial PATCH] arch/x86: Remove unnecessary returns from void
 function()'s

On 05/11/2010 05:39 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> This patch removes from arch/x86/ all the unnecessary
> return; statements that precede the last closing brace of
> void functions.
> 
> It does not remove returns that are immediately
> preceded by a label as gcc doesn't like that.

And the point of this is?

I fail to see how this improves the clarity of the code one iota, and
isn't anything but just churn.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/