linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ssb: main.c: This patch removes unnecessary return statement using spatch tool

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: <CAGRGNgW8cA_AA0Kgyq--RgkJ4x3=4h-0B-iKRGJNoYTfuG4O5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Jan 2017 11:52:35 +1100
From:   Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
To:     Rahul Krishnan <mrahul.krishnan@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ssb: main.c: This patch removes unnecessary return
 statement using spatch tool

Hi Rahul,

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Rahul Krishnan
<mrahul.krishnan@...il.com> wrote:
> This patch removes unnecessary return statement using spatch.

This doesn't describe the patch.

> Signed-off-by: Rahul Krishnan <mrahul.krishnan@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/ssb/main.c | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ssb/main.c b/drivers/ssb/main.c
> index d1a7507..ae3b7fe 100644
> --- a/drivers/ssb/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/ssb/main.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/*
> + patch /home/rahul/git/kernels/staging/drivers//*

What is the purpose of this change, won't this cause the file to fail
to compile?

>   * Sonics Silicon Backplane
>   * Subsystem core
>   *
> @@ -1272,9 +1272,7 @@ u32 ssb_admatch_size(u32 adm)
>         default:
>                 SSB_WARN_ON(1);
>         }
> -       size = (1 << (size + 1));
> -
> -       return size;
> +       return (1 << (size + 1));

Is the size variable used elsewhere? If not, it's declaration should
probably be removed.

Also, there should be a blank line before the return statement.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@...il.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/