linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements

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: <CAK5sBcFS23cymDxDsMe8e+CZPtFM=ugFSSgG-rFmjHzuvK9WKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:05:19 +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 8:55 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 08:46 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> 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;'
>
> No.  The compiler gets to warn on those.
> checkpatch isn't a compiler.

Right. I misunderstood the context of the discussion.
Sorry for the noise.

-- 
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/