[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whARK9gtk0BPo8Y0EQqASNG9SfpF1MRqjxf43OO9F0vag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:49:00 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>,
Zheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@...wei.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: fix no return statement in function returning non-void
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 4:55 AM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Zheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@...wei.com>
>
> Add missing return to fix following compilation issue:
>
> fs/afs/dir.c: In function ‘afs_dir_set_page_dirty’:
> fs/afs/dir.c:51:1: error: no return statement in function
> returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
This warning is actively wrong, and the patch is the wrong thing to do.
What compiler / architecture / config?
Because BUG() should have an "unreachable()", and the compiler should
know that a return statement isn't needed (and adding it shouldn't
make any difference).
And it's not warning for me when I build that code. So I really think
the real bug is entirely somewhere else, and this patch is papering
over the real problem.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists