[PATCH v1] checkpatch: Check for invalid return codes

[PATCH v1] checkpatch: Check for invalid return codes

[Prakruthi Deepak Heragu]

The only valid integer return is 0, anything else
following "return" should be -ERRCODE or a function. Also, display context
so that the user knows where the return value is incorrect.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/23/318
  There's lots of "return -1;" statements in this patch - it's obscene
  that this is used to indicate "some error occurred" in kernel space
  rather than a real errno value - even when an existing function
  (eg, request_irq) gave you an error code already.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Stepan Moskovchenko <stepanm@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <pheragu@codeaurora.org>
---
Changes in v1:
- Use CHK instead of ERROR
- Rephrase the warning message
- Provide the file name and line number where return value is incorrect

 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index a9c0550..2808c27 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -6197,6 +6197,12 @@ sub process {
 			     "switch default: should use break\n" . $herectx);
 		}
 
+# check for return codes on error paths
+		if ($line =~ /\breturn\s+-\d+/) {
+			CHK("NO_ERROR_CODE",
+			      "invalid return value, please return -<APPROPRIATE_ERRNO>\n" . $herecurr);
+		}
+
 # check for gcc specific __FUNCTION__
 		if ($line =~ /\b__FUNCTION__\b/) {
 			if (WARN("USE_FUNC",
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: Check for invalid return codes

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 16:41 -0700, Prakruthi Deepak Heragu wrote:
> The only valid integer return is 0, anything else
> following "return" should be -ERRCODE or a function.

Integer return values can be positive constant and correct.

So perhaps better:

Negative integer return codes should prefer to use #define -<ERRNO>
values instead of negative numbers.

> Also, display context
> so that the user knows where the return value is incorrect.
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/23/318
>   There's lots of "return -1;" statements in this patch - it's obscene
>   that this is used to indicate "some error occurred" in kernel space
>   rather than a real errno value - even when an existing function
>   (eg, request_irq) gave you an error code already.

This bit is superfluous and if you are going to quote
someone in a patch commit, it's nice to cc: them.

> Signed-off-by: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stepan Moskovchenko <stepanm@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <pheragu@codeaurora.org>

Does it really take 3 people to sign-off on this patch?

> ---
> Changes in v1:
> - Use CHK instead of ERROR
> - Rephrase the warning message
> - Provide the file name and line number where return value is incorrect
> 
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a9c0550..2808c27 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -6197,6 +6197,12 @@ sub process {
>  			     "switch default: should use break\n" . $herectx);
>  		}
>  
> +# check for return codes on error paths



> +		if ($line =~ /\breturn\s+-\d+/) {
> +			CHK("NO_ERROR_CODE",

NO_ERROR_CODE isn't very obvious to me.
How about NEGATIVE_ERRNO or APPROPRIATE_ERRNO

> +			      "invalid return value, please return -<APPROPRIATE_ERRNO>\n" . $herecurr);
> +		}
> +
>  # check for gcc specific __FUNCTION__
>  		if ($line =~ /\b__FUNCTION__\b/) {
>  			if (WARN("USE_FUNC",