From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:00:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add a lot of dummy returns to avoid warnings with NO_NORETURN
Message-ID: <20110620220027.GD32765@one.firstfloor.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vk4cgb24p.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

> I would need to clarify with s/introduce noise/introduce more noise/; the
> existing codebase is not noise-free.
> 
> But I do not see much point in making things worse, only to squelch
> "reaches end of non void function" warnings that will be given under the
> NO_NORETURN workaround configuration.

Can you please give specific guidance what I should do to make
the patchkit acceptable?

Current options are:

1) use original minimal patchkit (which had two warnings or so)
1b) use original minimal patchkit with warnings fixed
2) use global patch proposal for NO_NORETURN (= lots of warnings)
2b) use patch proposal + additional patch to fix warnings (posted here)
3) something I missed.

Which one do you prefer? If 3 I would prefer specific guidance.

Thanks,

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.