From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] xen: Identify panic and reboot/halt
 functions as noreturn
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:39:47 +0000
Message-ID: <530B83E3.1020603@citrix.com>
References: <1393254090-5081-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1393254090-5081-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<530B7B42020000780011EE5E@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<530B711D.2080408@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <530B711D.2080408@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 24/02/14 16:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 24/02/14 16:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 24.02.14 at 16:01, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> This patch shows a somewhat undesirable inconsistency (having been
>> present in I think les obvious ways in earlier patches too):
>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/shutdown.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/shutdown.c
>>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ static void raw_machine_reset(void)
>>>      platform_reset();
>>>  }
>>>  =

>>> -static void halt_this_cpu(void *arg)
>>> +static void noreturn halt_this_cpu(void *arg)
>> For function definitions you place the attribute where I personally
>> would expect it to be (iirc it can't go between the closing paren
>> after the parameter declarations and the opening brace of the
>> function body), yet ...
> Hmm - I thought I had fixed all of these - I shall audit and respin.  I
> certainly did intend to be consistent.
>
> ~Andrew

And now I remember why it is strictly this way around.

It is a compile error to have the noreturn after the arguments on a
static function.

shutdown.c:15:1: error: expected =91,=92 or =91;=92 before =91{=92 token
{
^
shutdown.c:14:13: error: =91halt_this_cpu=92 used but never defined [-Werro=
r]
static void halt_this_cpu(void *arg) noreturn
^

but fine to have the attributes between the return type and name.

I could standardise on the other way around, to be the same as __init &
friends ?

~Andrew