On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 16:41 -0700, Prakruthi Deepak Heragu wrote: > The only valid integer return is 0, anything else > following "return" should be -ERRCODE or a function.
Integer return values can be positive constant and correct. So perhaps better: Negative integer return codes should prefer to use #define -<ERRNO> values instead of negative numbers. > Also, display context > so that the user knows where the return value is incorrect. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/23/318 > There's lots of "return -1;" statements in this patch - it's obscene > that this is used to indicate "some error occurred" in kernel space > rather than a real errno value - even when an existing function > (eg, request_irq) gave you an error code already. This bit is superfluous and if you are going to quote someone in a patch commit, it's nice to cc: them. > Signed-off-by: Patrick Pannuto <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Stepan Moskovchenko <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <[email protected]> Does it really take 3 people to sign-off on this patch? > --- > Changes in v1: > - Use CHK instead of ERROR > - Rephrase the warning message > - Provide the file name and line number where return value is incorrect > > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > index a9c0550..2808c27 100755 > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > @@ -6197,6 +6197,12 @@ sub process { > "switch default: should use break\n" . $herectx); > } > > +# check for return codes on error paths > + if ($line =~ /\breturn\s+-\d+/) { > + CHK("NO_ERROR_CODE", NO_ERROR_CODE isn't very obvious to me. How about NEGATIVE_ERRNO or APPROPRIATE_ERRNO > + "invalid return value, please return > -<APPROPRIATE_ERRNO>\n" . $herecurr); > + } > + > # check for gcc specific __FUNCTION__ > if ($line =~ /\b__FUNCTION__\b/) { > if (WARN("USE_FUNC",
