linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: fix simple

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, 19 Feb 2015 11:25:09 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
Cc:	kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.schevchenko@...il.com>,
	"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: fix simple_return.cocci warnings


* Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie> wrote:

> On 19/02/15 08:14, kbuild test robot wrote:
> >arch/x86/platform/intel-quark/imr.c:129:1-4: WARNING: end returns can be simpified
> >
> >  Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
> >  preceding function call.
> >Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
> >
> >CC: Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
> >Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> >---
> >
> >  imr.c |    6 +-----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> >--- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-quark/imr.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-quark/imr.c
> >@@ -126,12 +126,8 @@ static int imr_read(struct imr_device *i
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >
> >-	ret = iosf_mbi_read(QRK_MBI_UNIT_MM, QRK_MBI_MM_READ,
> >+	return iosf_mbi_read(QRK_MBI_UNIT_MM, QRK_MBI_MM_READ,
> >  				reg++, &imr->wmask);
> >-	if (ret)
> >-		return ret;
> >-
> >-	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> >  /**
> >
> 
> This flow was a change asked for and supplied in review 
> feedback for Andy Shevchenko so NAK to this patch.

But this pattern:

	if (ret)
		return ret;

	return 0;

makes very little sense. Why is it done?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/