From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758266AbYDYMmz@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758266AbYDYMmz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:42:55 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753135AbYDYMms
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:42:48 -0400
Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:57407 "EHLO
	pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751640AbYDYMmr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:42:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: add statics, don't return void expressions
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>
Cc: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804251431510.6645@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
References: <1209086275.20088.4.camel@brick>
	 <1209125826.24931.12.camel@lappy>
	 <alpine.LNX.1.10.0804251431510.6645@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:42:12 +0200
Message-Id: <1209127332.32291.1.camel@lappy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:32 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2008-04-25 14:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 18:17 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >> Noticed by sparse:
> >> kernel/sched.c:760:20: warning: symbol 'sched_feat_names' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >> kernel/sched.c:767:5: warning: symbol 'sched_feat_open' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >> kernel/sched_fair.c:845:3: warning: returning void-valued expression
> >> kernel/sched.c:4386:3: warning: returning void-valued expression
> >
> >I'm still of two minds about that latter warning, I think:
> >
> >void foo(void);
> >
> >void bar(void)
> >{
> >	return foo();
> >}
> >
> >isn't wrong, as the return types match.
> 
> But you could save a keyword and use
> 
> void bar(void)
> {
> 	foo();
> }

Sure, but this was just to show the idiom at hand; an actual use case
would be something like this:

void bar(void)
{
	if (cond)
		return foo();

	/* do stuff ourselves */
}

Leaving out the return here does have side-effects.