linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] staging: ks7010: Delete three unnecessary variable initialisations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:47:03 +0200
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] staging: ks7010: Delete three unnecessary variable
 initialisations

>> @@ -323,14 +323,14 @@ static void tx_device_task(void *dev)
>>  {
>>  	struct ks_wlan_private *priv = (struct ks_wlan_private *)dev;
>>  	struct tx_device_buffer *sp;
>> -	int rc = 0;
>>
>>  	DPRINTK(4, "\n");
>>  	if (cnt_txqbody(priv) > 0
>>  	    && atomic_read(&priv->psstatus.status) != PS_SNOOZE) {
>>  		sp = &priv->tx_dev.tx_dev_buff[priv->tx_dev.qhead];
>>  		if (priv->dev_state >= DEVICE_STATE_BOOT) {
>> -			rc = write_to_device(priv, sp->sendp, sp->size);
>> +			int rc = write_to_device(priv, sp->sendp, sp->size);
> 
> This does not look appealing to me, neither the declaration in the middle
> of the function, nor the intiialization to the result of a complex
> expression, nor the separation of the call and the error checking code by
> a blank line.  There is nothing wrong with having the rc variable be
> declared at the the top of the function, in its normal place.

* Do you occasionally care for a refactoring like "Reduce scope of variable"?

  http://refactoring.com/catalog/reduceScopeOfVariable.html

* How do you think about to remove the extra assignment at the beginning
  of this function implementation?

Regards,
Markus