Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:05:19 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements | From | Sachin Kamat <> |
| |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 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@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.
Right. I misunderstood the context of the discussion. Sorry for the noise.
-- Regards, Sachin.
| |