On 2025/2/24 21:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 07:00:28PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
>> On 2025/2/22 04:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> */
>>>> static inline void tlb_remove_page(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct page *page)
>>>> {
>>>> - return tlb_remove_page_size(tlb, page, PAGE_SIZE);
>>>> + tlb_remove_page_size(tlb, page, PAGE_SIZE);
>>>> }
>>> So I don't mind removing it, but note that that return enforces
>>> tlb_remove_page_size() has void return type.
>>>
>>
>> tlb_remove_page_size() is void function already. (^^)
>
> Yes, but if you were to change that, the above return would complain.
>
>>> It might not be your preferred coding style, but it is not completely
>>> pointless.
>>
>> based on below C spec such as C17 description. i guess language C does
>> not like this usage "return void function in void function";
>
> This is GNU extension IIRC. Note kernel uses GNU11, not C11
any link to share about GNU11's description for this aspect ? (^^)
