Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:25:57 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 08:46 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 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.
It's a code style verifying and sometimes an API misuse checking tool.
In this case, using return at the bottom of a void function like
void function(void) { [code...]
return; }
is undesired and would generally be written as
void function(void) { [code...] }
| |