From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [patch] sunrpc: add missing return statement
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 08:27:22 -0400
Message-ID: <1272976042.7559.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20100504115759.266396633@emlix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Alexandros Batsakis <batsakis@netapp.com>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Johannes Weiner <jw@emlix.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100504115759.266396633@emlix.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:59 +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: 
> f300bab "nfsd41: sunrpc: add new xprt class for nfsv4.1 backchannel"
> introduced an error case branch that lacks an actual `return' keyword
> before the return value.  Add it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jw@emlix.com>
> Cc: Alexandros Batsakis <batsakis@netapp.com>
> ---
>  net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> @@ -2444,7 +2444,7 @@ static struct rpc_xprt *xs_setup_bc_tcp(
>  	struct svc_sock *bc_sock;
>  
>  	if (!args->bc_xprt)
> -		ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  
>  	xprt = xs_setup_xprt(args, xprt_tcp_slot_table_entries);
>  	if (IS_ERR(xprt))

No. It should either be a BUG_ON(), or else be removed entirely.
Returning an error value for something that is clearly a programming bug
is not a particularly useful exercise...

Cheers
  Trond