From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] can: fix oops caused by wrong rtnl dellink usage Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:55:27 +0200 Message-ID: <34b61d80-6069-4ee4-a129-93d77305edae@hartkopp.net> References: <1466673741-23115-1-git-send-email-mkl@pengutronix.de> <1466673741-23115-3-git-send-email-mkl@pengutronix.de> <0e51107f-a381-6c94-0079-d0ed415d8bcc@hartkopp.net> <874m8d7oiu.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, stable@vger.kernel.org To: Holger Schurig , Sergei Shtylyov , Marc Kleine-Budde , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <874m8d7oiu.fsf@gmail.com> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 06/28/2016 09:36 AM, Holger Schurig wrote: >> static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head); >> >> and >> >> static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head) >> { >> return; >> } > > Wouldn't the canonical form be this: > > static void can_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head) > { > } > > > - the curly braces make sure this isn't a forward definition > - but no useless return either > > > But then again, this "return" is only cosmetical. Yes it is just coding style. > No compiler will > generate any code from it. ACK. If you check ~/linux$ git grep \{\ return\; there are many occurrences of empty void functions having a 'return' inside the curly braces. I think static void can_dellink( ... ){} would have made it too. Now can_dellink() just locks similar to can_newlink() some lines above. Regards, Oliver