Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 5/17/21 6:55 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/17/21 1:40 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/21 10:05 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:13:19AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> extern void radix__local_flush_all_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h
>>>>>> index 215973b4cb26..f9f8a3a264f7 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/tlbflush.h
>>>>>> @@ -45,13 +45,30 @@ static inline void tlbiel_all_lpid(bool radix)
>>>>>> hash__tlbiel_all(TLB_INVAL_SCOPE_LPID);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +static inline void flush_pmd_tlb_pwc_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>> ^^^^
>>>>>> + unsigned long start,
>>>>>> + unsigned long end,
>>>>>> + bool flush_pwc)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + if (radix_enabled())
>>>>>> + return radix__flush_pmd_tlb_range(vma, start, end, flush_pwc);
>>>>>> + return hash__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> In this specific case we won't have build errors because,
>>>>
>>>> static inline void hash__flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, you completely lost me.
>>>
>>> Building parisc:allnoconfig ... failed
>>> --------------
>>> Error log:
>>> In file included from arch/parisc/include/asm/cacheflush.h:7,
>>> from include/linux/highmem.h:12,
>>> from include/linux/pagemap.h:11,
>>> from include/linux/ksm.h:13,
>>> from mm/mremap.c:14:
>>> mm/mremap.c: In function 'flush_pte_tlb_pwc_range':
>>> arch/parisc/include/asm/tlbflush.h:20:2: error: 'return' with a value, in function returning void
>>
>> As replied here
>> https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/8eedb441-a612-1ec8-8bf7-b40184de9f6f@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> That was the generic header change in the patch. I was commenting about the
>> ppc64 specific change causing build failures.
>
> Ah, sorry. I wasn't aware that the following is valid C code
>
> void f1()
> {
> return f2();
> ^^^^^^
> }
>
> as long as f2() is void as well. Confusing, but we live and learn.
It might be valid, but it's still bad IMHO.
It's confusing to readers, and serves no useful purpose.
cheers
