Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 5/18/21 5:26 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Agreed, but it is surprisingly wide-spread. Try to run the coccinelle
> script below, just for fun. The script doesn't even catch instances
> in include files, yet there are more than 450 hits.
Yikes, that is a lot.
I guess they're pretty harmless, but would be nice to clean them up
eventually.
Why doesn't the script work for instances in headers?
cheers
