Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190318085733.3143-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> <20190318085733.3143-2-duyuyang@gmail.com>
 <494746a793619dd9b43fb152de811a6e7de77cce.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <494746a793619dd9b43fb152de811a6e7de77cce.camel@perches.com>
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:28:01 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHttsrZAtfNuk80R=m3E--z6O6RCTNSbBN35+PPAHN2UgDYzog@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/19] locking/lockdep: Change all print_*() return
 type to void
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        bvanassche@acm.org, ming.lei@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for the review.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 17:45, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 16:57 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Since none of the print_*() function's return value is necessary, change
> > their return type to void. No functional change.
> >
> > In cases where an invariable return value is used, this change slightly
> > improves readability, i.e.:
> []
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> []
> > @@ -1430,23 +1430,20 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list *src_entry,
> []
> > -static void
> > -print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
> > -                          struct held_lock *tgt,
> > -                          struct lock_list *prt)
> > +static void print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
> > +                                      struct held_lock *tgt,
> > +                                      struct lock_list *prt)
>
> trivia:
>
> This style change seems superfluous as many
> other existing functions use the previous style.

Those "many other" are kind of bizarre already in the context of that
file IMHO. So the change went to great lengths in #05 :)