On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On martedì 12 aprile 2022 21:59:15 CEST Jaehee Park wrote:
> > An empty function with void return type does not need an explicit
> > return. Issue found by checkpatch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaehee Park <jhpark1013@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c b/drivers/staging/
> greybus/audio_codec.c
> > index 0f50d1e51e2c..3e3a16568def 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c
> > @@ -1032,7 +1032,6 @@ static int gbcodec_probe(struct snd_soc_component
> *comp)
> > static void gbcodec_remove(struct snd_soc_component *comp)
> > {
> > /* Empty function for now */
> > - return;
> > }
> >
> > static int gbcodec_write(struct snd_soc_component *comp, unsigned int
> reg,
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> Hi Jaehee,
>
> If I recall it correctly, Dan Carpenter suggested to remove this empty
> function.
>
> When developers remove lines of code from a function which becomes empty
> after the removals, they also remove the resulting empty function and
> delete all the calls (if there are any left) at the same time.
It's probably not relevant in this case, but the function could be needed
if it is a branch of an ifdef. Also if it is stored in a structure field
and the user of the structure does not check for NULL.
julia_______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list -- greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to greybus-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|