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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:37:25 -0700 From: Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements On 06/16/2014 07:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 17:44 -0700, Anish Bhatt wrote: >> My code has multiple exit lables: >> void function(void) >> { >> ... >> >> if (err1) >> goto exit1; >> ... >> if (err2) >> goto exit2; >> >> ... >> return; /* Good return, no errors */ >> exit1: >> printk(err1); >> return; >> exit2: >> printk(err2); >> } >> >> The single tabbed return was required to prevent the good return & err1 >> messages cascading down. The extra exit label with a noop looks weird, >> but is passing checkpatch.pl --strict, so I will go with that, thanks. >> -Anish >> > > Hmm, those return uses seem reasonable > to me. > > Perhaps the test should warn only on > this specific 3 line sequence: > > [any line but a label] > return; > } > > Andrew? Anyone else? Opinions? > I think simply return; } should trigger the warning. If you are using a label just to exit, you could just do it in-place (though possibly someone might want to a goto instead of multiple returns) -Anish -- 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