Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements

[Sachin Kamat]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 08:46 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 17:44 -0700, Anish Bhatt wrote:
>> >> My code has multiple exit lables:
>> >> void function(void)
>> >> {
>> >>       ...
>> >>
>> >>       if (err1)
>> >>               goto exit1;
>> >>       ...
>> >>       if (err2)
>> >>               goto exit2;
>> >>
>> >>       ...
>> >>       return; /* Good return, no errors */
>> >> exit1:
>> >>       printk(err1);
>> >>       return;
>> >> exit2:
>> >>       printk(err2);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> The single tabbed return was required to prevent the good return & err1
>> >> messages cascading down. The extra exit label with a noop looks weird,
>> >> but is passing checkpatch.pl --strict, so I will go with that, thanks.
>> >> -Anish
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hmm, those return uses seem reasonable
>> > to me.
>> >
>> > Perhaps the test should warn only on
>> > this specific 3 line sequence:
>> >
>> > [any line but a label]
>> >         return;
>> > }
>> >
>> > Andrew?  Anyone else?  Opinions?
>>
>> It should warn only if the return is followed by a value like
>> return 0; or return -EERROR_CODE; etc. and not just 'return;'
>
> No.  The compiler gets to warn on those.
> checkpatch isn't a compiler.

Right. I misunderstood the context of the discussion.
Sorry for the noise.

-- 
Regards,
Sachin.
--
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/