On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:39:42PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different >> modifiers) >> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: expected int ( *threadfn )( ... ) >> kernel/rcu/tree.c:3435:21: got int ( static [toplevel] [noreturn] >> *<noident> )( ... ) >> >> by removing __noreturn attribute and adding unreachable() as suggested on the >> mailing list: http://www.kernelhub.org/?p=2&msg=436683 >> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <[email protected]> > > No, we should not do this. And the mailing list post you point to seems > to explicitly recommend using noreturn rather than unreachable. > > If sparse doesn't understand this, that's a bug in sparse, not in the > kernel. Sparse needs to understand that it's OK to drop noreturn from a > function pointer type, just not OK to add it. > > Rationale: If you call a noreturn function through a non-noreturn > function pointer, you might end up with unnecessary cleanup code, but > the call will work. If you call a non-noreturn function through a > noreturn function pointer, the caller will not expect a return, and may > crash; *that* should require a cast. >
Yes, I understand the rationale. I think this should be fixed in sparse. Please drop this patch. Thanks! -- Pranith -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
