From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754220Ab0ELAsy (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2010 20:48:54 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:57024 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752514Ab0ELAsx (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 May 2010 20:48:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4BE9F94A.9000907@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:41:46 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches CC: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, LKML , Jiri Kosina Subject: Re: [trivial PATCH] arch/x86: Remove unnecessary returns from void function()'s References: <1273624747.20514.316.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> In-Reply-To: <1273624747.20514.316.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/11/2010 05:39 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > This patch removes from arch/x86/ all the unnecessary > return; statements that precede the last closing brace of > void functions. > > It does not remove returns that are immediately > preceded by a label as gcc doesn't like that. And the point of this is? I fail to see how this improves the clarity of the code one iota, and isn't anything but just churn. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.