linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723au: Fixes unnecessary return warning

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: <1454117303.10099.84.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:28:23 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>,
	Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>
Cc:	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>,
	Haneen Mohammed <hamohammed.sa@...il.com>,
	Andreas Ruprecht <andreas.ruprecht@....de>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723au: Fixes unnecessary return warning

On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 10:17 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com> writes:
> > > This patch fixes checkpatch.pl warning in rtw_mlme_ext.c file.
> > > WARNING: void function return statements are not generally useful
[]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
[]
> > > @@ -2657,7 +2657,6 @@ static void issue_probersp(struct rtw_adapter *padapter, unsigned char *da)
> > > 
> > >       dump_mgntframe23a(padapter, pmgntframe);
> > > 
> > > -     return;
> > >  }
> > 
> > If you insist on pushing this rather unncessary change, please do it
> > properly, and remove the blank line before the return statement as well.
> 
> As Jes said, you need to remove the blank lines before the returns
> too. checkpatch should have picked this up, you did run the patch
> through checkpatch before you sent it, right?

checkpatch doesn't pick this up.

If you'd like to make it do so, you're welcome to try
but it's likely a bit more complicated than it appears.