linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] staging: greybus: remove unneeded 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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204130815020.3470@hadrien>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:16:20 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
cc:     johan@...nel.org, Jaehee Park <jhpark1013@...il.com>,
        elder@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] staging: greybus: remove unneeded return



On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:

> On martedì 12 aprile 2022 21:59:15 CEST Jaehee Park wrote:
> > An empty function with void return type does not need an explicit
> > return. Issue found by checkpatch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaehee Park <jhpark1013@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c b/drivers/staging/
> greybus/audio_codec.c
> > index 0f50d1e51e2c..3e3a16568def 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c
> > @@ -1032,7 +1032,6 @@ static int gbcodec_probe(struct snd_soc_component
> *comp)
> >  static void gbcodec_remove(struct snd_soc_component *comp)
> >  {
> >  	/* Empty function for now */
> > -	return;
> >  }
> >
> >  static int gbcodec_write(struct snd_soc_component *comp, unsigned int
> reg,
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> Hi Jaehee,
>
> If I recall it correctly, Dan Carpenter suggested to remove this empty
> function.
>
> When developers remove lines of code from a function which becomes empty
> after the removals, they also remove the resulting empty function and
> delete all the calls (if there are any left) at the same time.

It's probably not relevant in this case, but the function could be needed
if it is a branch of an ifdef.  Also if it is stored in a structure field
and the user of the structure does not check for NULL.

julia