A new set of warnings appeared in next-20180403 in some configurations
when gcc cannot see that rbd_assert(0) leads to an unreachable code
path:
drivers/block/rbd.c: In function 'rbd_img_is_write':
drivers/block/rbd.c:1397:1: error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
drivers/block/rbd.c: In function '__rbd_obj_handle_request':
drivers/block/rbd.c:2499:1: error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
drivers/block/rbd.c: In function 'rbd_obj_handle_write':
drivers/block/rbd.c:2471:1: error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
To work around this, we can add a return statement to each of these
cases. An alternative would be to remove the unlikely() annotation
in rbd_assert(), or to just use BUG()/BUG_ON() directly. This adds the
return statements, guessing what the most reasonable behavior
would be.
Fixes: 3da691bf4366 ("rbd: new request handling code")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/block/rbd.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
index 07dc5419bd63..9445a71a9cd6 100644
--- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
@@ -1394,6 +1394,7 @@ static bool rbd_img_is_write(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
default:
rbd_assert(0);
}
+ return false;
}
static void rbd_obj_handle_request(struct rbd_obj_request *obj_req);
@@ -2468,6 +2469,7 @@ static bool rbd_obj_handle_write(struct rbd_obj_request *obj_req)
default:
rbd_assert(0);
}
+ return true;
}
/*
@@ -2496,6 +2498,7 @@ static bool __rbd_obj_handle_request(struct rbd_obj_request *obj_req)
default:
rbd_assert(0);
}
+ return true;
}
static void rbd_obj_end_request(struct rbd_obj_request *obj_req)
--
2.9.0
