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 <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
---
 fs/ubifs/debug.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

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,
-- 
2.17.1

在 2024/12/6 20:52, Pintu Kumar 写道:
> 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 <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
> ---
>   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 <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>

> 
> 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,
> 

Hi Zhihao,

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 08:25, Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> 在 2024/12/6 20:52, Pintu Kumar 写道:
> > 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 <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
> > ---
> >   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 <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
>
Thank you so much for your review and comments.
Oh, normally I follow "subsystem: filename: <title>" for the other patches.
Okay, no worries, I can follow your suggestion as "subsystem: function-name"
and push changes again for both the patches.

Actually, sometimes, function-name can be quite big, so I avoid it in
subject titles.
But no issues, I can change it and push again.

Thank you,
Regards,
Pintu