linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: remove unreachable code

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]

Message-ID: <CA+Z25wXRxPzdBAHj3_En4bBEpk=0HChnt-w_tHAbrXOvS9Odww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:28:06 +0530
From:	Rajagopal Venkat <rajagopal.venkat@...aro.org>
To:	Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@...aro.org>
Cc:	mturquette@...aro.org, patches@...aro.org,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: remove unreachable code

On 9 January 2013 11:20, Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 06:33 PM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
>> while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
>> consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
>> If done, else part becomes unreachable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat <rajagopal.venkat@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/clk.c |    5 +----
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> index 251e45d..f896584 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> @@ -1048,10 +1048,7 @@ void __clk_reparent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *new_parent)
>>
>>       hlist_del(&clk->child_node);
>>
>> -     if (new_parent)
>> -             hlist_add_head(&clk->child_node, &new_parent->children);
>> -     else
>> -             hlist_add_head(&clk->child_node, &clk_orphan_list);
>> +     hlist_add_head(&clk->child_node, &new_parent->children);
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_DEBUG
>>       if (!inited)
>>
>
> The same logic holds good for following piece of code too.
>
> 1060 |-------if (new_parent)
> 1061 |-------|-------new_parent_d = new_parent->dentry;
> 1062 |-------else
> 1063 |-------|-------new_parent_d = orphandir;

Yes. Thanks for pointing out.

>
>
> --
> Tushar Behera



-- 
Regards,
Rajagopal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/