Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: fix no return statement in function returning
 non-void
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>,
        Zheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@huawei.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <162375813191.653958.11993495571264748407.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=whARK9gtk0BPo8Y0EQqASNG9SfpF1MRqjxf43OO9F0vag@mail.gmail.com>
 <f2764b10-dd0d-cabf-0264-131ea5829fed@infradead.org>
 <CAHk-=whPPWYXKQv6YjaPQgQCf+78S+0HmAtyzO1cFMdcqQp5-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <c2002123-795c-20ae-677c-a35ba0e361af@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <07d62654-15c1-29a4-c671-1669ea92510b@infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:19:03 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c2002123-795c-20ae-677c-a35ba0e361af@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/15/21 6:38 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 6/15/21 5:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 4:58 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some implementations of BUG() are macros, not functions,
>>
>> Not "some", I think. Most.
>>
>>> so "unreachable" is not applicable AFAIK.
>>
>> Sure it is. One common pattern is the x86 one:
>>
>>   #define BUG()                                                   \
>>   do {                                                            \
>>           instrumentation_begin();                                \
>>           _BUG_FLAGS(ASM_UD2, 0);                                 \
>>           unreachable();                                          \
>>   } while (0)
> 
> duh.
> 
>> and that "unreachable()" is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>
>> So I repeat: what completely broken compiler / config / architecture
>> is it that needs that "return 0" after a BUG() statement?
> 
> I have seen it on ia64 -- most likely GCC 9.3.0, but I'll have to
> double check that.

Nope, I cannot repro that now. I'll check a few more arches...

>> Because that environment is broken, and the warning is bogus and wrong.
>>
>> It might not be the compiler. It might be some architecture that does
>> this wrong. It might be some very particular configuration that does
>> something bad and makes the "unreachable()" not work (or not exist).
>>
>> But *that* is the bug that should be fixed. Not adding a pointless and
>> incorrect line that makes no sense, just to hide the real bug.


-- 
~Randy