[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK5sBcGurbiFvd7s5sd=HtRkdw0SydWVw3g7_zKBt_eJC+NGUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:46:38 +0530
From: Sachin Kamat <spk.linux@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> 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?
It should warn only if the return is followed by a value like
return 0; or return -EERROR_CODE; etc. and not just 'return;'
--
Regards,
Sachin.
--
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