On 5/20/21 4:38 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:

Guenter Roeck [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 5/18/21 5:26 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
[ ... ]

quoted

quoted

quoted

That was the generic header change in the patch. I was commenting about the
ppc64 specific change causing build failures.

Ah, sorry. I wasn't aware that the following is valid C code

void f1()
{
       return f2();
       ^^^^^^
}

as long as f2() is void as well. Confusing, but we live and learn.

It might be valid, but it's still bad IMHO.

It's confusing to readers, and serves no useful purpose.

Agreed, but it is surprisingly wide-spread. Try to run the coccinelle
script below, just for fun. The script doesn't even catch instances
in include files, yet there are more than 450 hits.

Yikes, that is a lot.

I guess they're pretty harmless, but would be nice to clean them up
eventually.

Why doesn't the script work for instances in headers?

Ah, that is one of those Coccinelle details. No idea. I run the script with

make coccicheck COCCI="return-void.cocci" MODE=report M=.

Probably there is a better way to invoke it which does handle include files.

Guenter