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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <051421e0-afe8-c6ca-95cd-4dc8cd20a43e@huawei.com>
 <200ea6f7-0182-9da1-734c-c49102663ccc@redhat.com> <CAHk-=wjEThm5Kyockk1kJhd_K-P+972t=SnEj-WX9KcKPW0-Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d7873b6-e35c-ae38-9952-a1df443b2aea@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d7873b6-e35c-ae38-9952-a1df443b2aea@redhat.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:29:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgW6yfsLUtepANX2PVkADR_7WDzk05YVhtw1ZBmDEGT2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: fix no return statement in function returning non-void
To:     Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
Cc:     Zheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@huawei.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:22 AM Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> to fix, add an unreachable() to the generic BUG()
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> index f152b9bb916f..b250e06d7de2 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> @@ -177,7 +177,10 @@ void __warn(const char *file, int line, void
> *caller, unsigned taint,
>
>   #else /* !CONFIG_BUG */
>   #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG
> -#define BUG() do {} while (1)
> +#define BUG() do {                                             \
> +               do {} while (1);                                \
> +               unreachable();                                  \
> +       } while (0)
>   #endif

I'm a bit surprised that the compiler doesn't make that code after an
infinite loop automatically be marked "unreachable". But at the same I
can imagine the compiler doing some checks without doing real flow
analysis, and doing "oh, that conditional branch is unconditional".

So this patch at least makes sense to me and I have no objections to
it, even if it makes me go "silly compiler, we shouldn't have to tell
you this".

So Ack from me on this.

           Linus