On 11/15/20 11:30 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 13.11.20 23:52, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Building on arch/s390/ flags this as an error, so add the
>> __noreturn attribute modifier to prevent the build error.
>>
>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>> ../drivers/md/dm-writecache.c: In function 'persistent_memory_claim':
>> ../drivers/md/dm-writecache.c:323:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
>
> ok with me, but I am asking why
>
> the unreachable macro is not good enough. For x86 it obviously is.
>
> form arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h
> #define BUG() do { \
> __EMIT_BUG(0); \
> unreachable(); \
> } while (0)
>
Hi Christian,
Good question.
I don't see any guidance about when to use one or the other etc.
I see __noreturn being used 109 times and unreachable();
being used 33 times, but only now that I look at them.
That had nothing to do with why I used __noreturn in the patch.
>
>>
>> Fixes: 48debafe4f2f ("dm: add writecache target")
>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Alasdair Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> drivers/md/dm-writecache.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> --- linux-next-20201113.orig/drivers/md/dm-writecache.c
>> +++ linux-next-20201113/drivers/md/dm-writecache.c
>> @@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ err1:
>> return r;
>> }
>> #else
>> -static int persistent_memory_claim(struct dm_writecache *wc)
>> +static int __noreturn persistent_memory_claim(struct dm_writecache *wc)
>> {
>> BUG();
>> }
>>
thanks.
--
~Randy
