[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLUVEx3WNY=HFCp3W=yOwUC3T5hZmYJTgm=e=5g-vk4=_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:10:41 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
> 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();"
Thanks for the review, I've made both changes and I'll send these out
shortly with the rest of my 4.14 focused queue.
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists