[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8737kt4owx.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:50:38 +0200
From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@...tec.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugfs: remove unused variable
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> 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?
AFAICS, the VFS layer doesn't ever evaluate the return value of
->release(), c.f. __fput() in fs/file_table.c .
OTOH, propagating that value back to caller also wouldn't hurt. But this
would be a matter of taste/coding style.
I can't remember whether I left this unused int r there on purpose. I
doubt not. Eric, did you run your patch through sparse and Coccinelle?
If so,
Reviewed-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
for the diff. (This patch lacks a description though.)
Thanks,
Nicolai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists