linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Staging: vt6656: Checkpatch fix: else after break or return

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: <20150113062427.GA8265@sudip-PC>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:54:27 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Emrys Bayliss <emrys@...adise.net.nz>, forest@...ttletooquiet.net,
	tvboxspy@...il.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Staging: vt6656: Checkpatch fix: else after break or
 return

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:58:17PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:53:12AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 03:51:36AM +1100, Emrys Bayliss wrote:
> > > This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl error:
> > > rxtx.c:588: WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> > 
> > was the checkpatch error solved with this change? have you checked?
> > 
> > and the checkpatch is giving error at line 558 and not at 588.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Emrys Bayliss <emrys@...adise.net.nz>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c | 2 --
> > >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c
> > > index ea5140a..0cce140 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c
> > > @@ -574,8 +574,6 @@ static u16 vnt_fill_cts_head(struct vnt_usb_send_context *tx_context,
> > >  
> > >  		return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
> > >  	}
> > > -
> > > -	return 0;
> > 
> > any reason why this return was removed ?
> 
> Because it's not needed.

yes, it is not needed. but the way Emrys Bayliss has changed the code, then we will get a compiler warning about no return statement.
the code becomes :

if (condition) {
	...
	return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g_fb(tx_context, &buf->data_head);	
} else {
	...
	return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
}

I would have removed that return when the code becomes:

if (condition) {
	...
	return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g_fb(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
}
...
return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head);


or am i wrong in this ?

sudip
--
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/