Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc:     johan@kernel.org, Jaehee Park <jhpark1013@gmail.com>,
        elder@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, outreachy@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] staging: greybus: remove unneeded return
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:35:55 +0200
Message-ID: <6300782.K2JlShyGXD@leap>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204130815020.3470@hadrien>
References: <cover.1649793138.git.jhpark1013@gmail.com> <5792471.alqRGMn8q6@leap> <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204130815020.3470@hadrien>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk

On mercoled=EC 13 aprile 2022 08:16:20 CEST Julia Lawall wrote:
>=20
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>=20
> > On marted=EC 12 aprile 2022 21:59:15 CEST Jaehee Park wrote:
> > > An empty function with void return type does not need an explicit
> > > return. Issue found by checkpatch.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jaehee Park <jhpark1013@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c | 1 -
> > >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c b/drivers/staging/
> > greybus/audio_codec.c
> > > index 0f50d1e51e2c..3e3a16568def 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_codec.c
> > > @@ -1032,7 +1032,6 @@ static int gbcodec_probe(struct=20
snd_soc_component
> > *comp)
> > >  static void gbcodec_remove(struct snd_soc_component *comp)
> > >  {
> > >  	/* Empty function for now */
> > > -	return;
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static int gbcodec_write(struct snd_soc_component *comp, unsigned=20
int
> > reg,
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> > Hi Jaehee,
> >
> > If I recall it correctly, Dan Carpenter suggested to remove this empty
> > function.
> >
> > When developers remove lines of code from a function which becomes=20
empty
> > after the removals, they also remove the resulting empty function and
> > delete all the calls (if there are any left) at the same time.
>=20
> It's probably not relevant in this case,=20

No, it's relevant :)
I should have been more exhaustive :(

> but the function could be needed
> if it is a branch of an ifdef.  Also if it is stored in a structure field
> and the user of the structure does not check for NULL.

Here we have one of special cases you've mentioned. The pointer to the=20
function is stored in a structure field _but_ we know that the user does=20
check for NULL.

Thanks,

=46abio

> julia