On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 08:46 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Joe Perches <j...@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...]
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
