linux-kernel - Re: Checkpatch.pl false positive? "ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100902134457.GS2406@shadowen.org>
Date:	Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:44:57 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To:	Olimpiu Pascariu <olimpiu.pascariu@...il.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dwalker@...o99.com, joe@...ches.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Checkpatch.pl false positive? "ERROR: return is not a
 function, parentheses are not required"

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:28:13PM +0300, Olimpiu Pascariu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've used checkpatch.pl to verify drivers/staging/dt3155/dt3155_isr.c,
> in order to provide a patch which fixes the errors and warnings found by
> checkpatch.
> The script returns the following error:
> ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
> #155: FILE: staging/dt3155/dt3155_isr.c:155:
> +  return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head -
> 
> The original code is:
> 
>   return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head -
>            dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_len +
>            dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers)%
>           (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers);
> 
> I've deleted the the first open parenthesis and the last close
> parenthesis, and now the code looks like this:
> 
>   return (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_head -
>            dt3155_fbuffer[m]->ready_len +
>            dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers)%
>           (dt3155_fbuffer[m]->nbuffers);
> 
> IMHO the code is correct, though an auxiliary variable could be used to
> avoid this error returned by checkpatch.pl. 

This code is indeed correct.  This is a bug in checkpatch, I think I
have sorted out the bug in the version below (which should be mirrored
out shortly).  If you could test the version below and let me know that
would be helpful:

  http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-testing

-apw
--
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/