[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <782f658d-6a32-8f6f-8757-d03f1ee29da3@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:01:07 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning
Hi John,
On 08/15/2017 06:11 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:01:36PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> Fixes the following build warning:
>> freq-step.c: In function ‘main’:
>> freq-step.c:271:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
>
>> @@ -268,4 +268,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> ksft_exit_fail();
This needs to be changes as well to return ksft_exit_fail();
>>
>> ksft_exit_pass();
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> It seems most tests use "return ksft_exit_pass();". Would that be
> preferred over separate return? I don't have a preference.
Let's go with "return ksft_exit_pass();"
>
> Both patches in this set look good to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists