From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A541F8BE8 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:55:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733540146; cv=none; b=Mg9xPoR0QD0n3R6CRGfUKJNpDXjOHmDqExRGOtq8GJkBeKcnSL6TPyVADmLbsk0fVKllmwK2ISL4aKBli06dQeiPrbBD1jZ1BrHv5JZTGgcMQ+7N2oNZ0f2lizOg9kas2cnt89K1auRY0C+FkHL+Cf/IbSECjzAtJfQOl8CpjjQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733540146; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MRcCbHQUBhmS00nVrTauRhvP/NK0uyMvcsma6GHdeO0=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=DXMbKOrMqvzgauxYRxQKdZh1b4oOgzm7DinbjztmPrHCpVQIS8qz4nF9NXy3CUGgi5w6X4TYHs19YekeFl0wTUFOTrU/MT4PDirTaj4I3eeOynKBkehNAUDv0ZBR+mYGm2Exwuinp53RJ2B/tviTHRX9DUaJcLT5DB0V3Kr3X3c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Y4t2v6lQPz11M1T; Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:52:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemk500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.194.90]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36F6E1800FD; Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:55:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.46] (10.174.178.46) by kwepemk500005.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:55:39 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs/debug: remove return from end of void function To: Pintu Kumar , , , CC: , References: <20241206125258.9212-1-quic_pintu@quicinc.com> From: Zhihao Cheng Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:55:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20241206125258.9212-1-quic_pintu@quicinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To kwepemk500005.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.90) ÔÚ 2024/12/6 20:52, Pintu Kumar дµÀ: > Noticed that there is a useless return statement at the end of void > function ubifs_dump_leb(). > Just removed it. > > Signed-off-by: Pintu Kumar > --- > fs/ubifs/debug.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) Hi, Pintu. The title of the patch should be something like "ubifs: ubifs_dump_leb: remove return at end of void function". See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Zhihao Cheng > > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/debug.c b/fs/ubifs/debug.c > index 5cc69beaa62e..987eb5b6782a 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/debug.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/debug.c > @@ -863,7 +863,6 @@ void ubifs_dump_leb(const struct ubifs_info *c, int lnum) > > out: > vfree(buf); > - return; > } > > void ubifs_dump_znode(const struct ubifs_info *c, >