Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754422AbZLCTip (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:38:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753511AbZLCTin (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:38:43 -0500 Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:1281 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752838AbZLCTin (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:38:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [Patch] selinux: remove an unreachable line From: Joe Perches To: Cong Wang Cc: Dan Carpenter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, James Morris In-Reply-To: <4B17793F.7050708@redhat.com> References: <20091201074422.4410.60874.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <1259653523.21388.7.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <4B14D468.2090502@redhat.com> <20091202123558.GC5224@bicker> <4B17793F.7050708@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:38:47 -0800 Message-ID: <1259869127.22783.70.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1713 Lines: 56 On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 16:39 +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 04:31:36PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > >> Joe Perches wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 02:41 -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote: > >>>> This line is unreachable, remove it. > >>> [] > >>>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/mls.c b/security/selinux/ss/mls.c > >>>> index b5407f1..a2f1034 100644 > >>>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/mls.c > >>>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/mls.c > >>>> @@ -544,7 +544,6 @@ int mls_compute_sid(struct context *scontext, > >>>> default: > >>>> return -EINVAL; > >>>> } > >>>> - return -EINVAL; > >>>> } > >>> I think it's better to remove the default case. > >>> > >> This is totally a personal taste, I think. > >> Either is OK. James, any comments? > > > > I think the last unreachable return might also stop certain > > versions of gcc complaining about control reaching the end of > > a non void function. > > Hmm, aren't those version of gcc buggy? Here we have return values > in all cases of 'switch', it shouldn't complain... Various versions of gcc do complain. It's also a bit counter-expectation to the reader to find no return at the end of a non-void function. As a reader, you then have to scan the cases to find the default: case which isn't necessarily at the end. If it is a simple default: return foo; I think it less jarring to omit default from the switch statement and use return foo; } at the function exit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/