[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874m8d7oiu.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:36:57 +0200
From: Holger Schurig <holgerschurig@...il.com>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...gutronix.de, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] can: fix oops caused by wrong rtnl dellink usage
> static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head);
>
> and
>
> static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)
> {
> return;
> }
Wouldn't the canonical form be this:
static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)
{
}
- the curly braces make sure this isn't a forward definition
- but no useless return either
But then again, this "return" is only cosmetical. No compiler will
generate any code from it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists