[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160921080111.GB15998@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:01:11 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@...tec.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugfs: remove unused variable
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:17:15PM +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@...tec.com>
> ---
> fs/debugfs/file.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/debugfs/file.c b/fs/debugfs/file.c
> index 592059f..04eca0b 100644
> --- a/fs/debugfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c
> @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ static int full_proxy_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> const struct dentry *dentry = F_DENTRY(filp);
> const struct file_operations *real_fops = REAL_FOPS_DEREF(dentry);
> const struct file_operations *proxy_fops = filp->f_op;
> - int r = 0;
>
> /*
> * We must not protect this against removal races here: the
> @@ -204,7 +203,7 @@ static int full_proxy_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> * ->i_private is still being meaningful here.
> */
> if (real_fops->release)
> - r = real_fops->release(inode, filp);
> + real_fops->release(inode, filp);
Hm, shouldn't we be propagating the result back up the call chain?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists