Re: [PATCH][TRIVIAL] silence warning in reiserfs_ioctl

[James Bourne]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:

> Gcc is afraid we might fall off the end of the function without returning.
> 
> diff -urNp linux-5110/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c linux-10010/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
> --- linux-5110/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
> +++ linux-10010/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ int reiserfs_ioctl (struct inode * inode
>  	default:
>  		return -ENOTTY;
>  	}
> +	return 0;
>  }

Since the default (hit in case nothing else fits and where it would return)
returns -ENOTTY, shouldn't the return be -ENOTTY?

The function could almost at that point remove the default: case and return
-ENOTTY at the end of the function and still be correct...

Of course, it's just wrong to not have the default case, but just as a
point..

Regards
James

> 
>  /*
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

-- 
James Bourne                  | Email:            jbourne@xxxxxxxxxxxx          
Unix Systems Administrator    | WWW:           http://www.hardrock.org
Custom Unix Programming       | Linux:  The choice of a GNU generation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 "All you need's an occasional kick in the philosophy." Frank Herbert  

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/