That wasn't the issue. If the compiler had been smarter it would have
noticed that the thing is never reached.
In short, it _is_ a stupid warning, even though it is understandable.
>The alternate solution would be to declare memcpy to return void. But then
>we really shouldn't call it memcpy() any more.
Go back and look at the patch. The code does the right thing, the
warning is incorrect.
Linus