linux-kernel - Re: [V4] staging : rtl8188eu : remove void function 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]

Date:   Mon, 8 May 2017 07:59:13 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Surender Polsani <surenderpolsani@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V4] staging : rtl8188eu : remove void function return

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:22:35AM +0530, Surender Polsani wrote:
> kernel coding style doesn't allow the return statement
> in void function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Surender Polsani <surenderpolsani@...il.com>
> ---
> Changes for v2:
> corrected subject line as suggested
> Changes for v3:
> modified from line as suggested by Greg KH
> placed a semicolon in label for fixing build error
> Changes for v4:
> changes made as suggested by Dan Carpenter
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_dm.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_dm.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_dm.c
> index d04b7fb..bf9f10f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_dm.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_dm.c
> @@ -146,7 +146,6 @@ void rtw_hal_dm_watchdog(struct adapter *Adapter)
>  
>  	if (!hw_init_completed)
>  		goto skip_dm;
> -

Why did you remove this line?

>  	/* ODM */
>  	pmlmepriv = &Adapter->mlmepriv;
>  
> @@ -165,7 +164,7 @@ void rtw_hal_dm_watchdog(struct adapter *Adapter)
>  skip_dm:
>  	/*  Check GPIO to determine current RF on/off and Pbc status. */
>  	/*  Check Hardware Radio ON/OFF or not */
> -	return;
> +	;

Why is the ';' still here?

You do understand the C language, right?

thanks,

greg k-h