linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/uncore: Remove unnecessary assignment to "box" in uncore_pci

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:	Wed, 28 May 2014 21:10:21 +0100
From:	Giedrius Rekasius <giedrius.rekasius@...il.com>
To:	walter harms <wharms@....de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/uncore: Remove unnecessary assignment to "box"
 in uncore_pci_remove(...)

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:16:04PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 28.05.2014 11:11, schrieb Giedrius Rekasius:
> > Local variable "box" gets assigned correct value when it is initialized.
> > There is no need to assign the same value again.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Giedrius Rekasius <giedrius.rekasius@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c
> > index 65bbbea..8cbbb1b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c
> > @@ -3817,7 +3817,6 @@ static void uncore_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >  	struct intel_uncore_pmu *pmu;
> >  	int i, cpu, phys_id = pcibus_to_physid[pdev->bus->number];
> >  
> > -	box = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >  	if (!box) {
> >  		for (i = 0; i < UNCORE_EXTRA_PCI_DEV_MAX; i++) {
> >  			if (extra_pci_dev[phys_id][i] == pdev) {
> 
> Just a remark,
> for readability it is better to remove the other one.

I could move the declaration itself closer to the if statement while
still keeping whole statement in one line.

On the other hand I'm not so sure if it makes any real difference to
have assignment right next to the if statement compared to a few lines
above it.

Regards,
Giedrius
--
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/