linux-kernel - Checkpatch miscomplaint about multi-arm if-statement

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <676505.1733250201@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 18:23:21 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Checkpatch miscomplaint about multi-arm if-statement

Hi,

I'm seeing this:

	WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
	#1220: FILE: net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:301:
	+               return -ENOMEM;
	+       } else {

on:

	if (call->send_queue) {
		tq->qbase = call->send_top + 1;
		call->send_queue->next = tq;
		call->send_queue = tq;
	} else if (WARN_ON(call->tx_queue)) {
		kfree(tq);
		return -ENOMEM;
	} else {
		tq->qbase = 0;
		call->tx_qbase = 0;
		call->send_queue = tq;
		call->tx_qtail = tq;
		call->tx_queue = tq;
	}

but you cannot eliminate the last 'else' statement there.

David