linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: atomisp: clean up return logic, remove redunant code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703121559470.2174@hadrien>
Date:   Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:00:23 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     walter harms <wharms@....de>
cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: atomisp: clean up return logic, remove redunant
 code



On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, walter harms wrote:

>
>
> Am 11.03.2017 20:32, schrieb Colin King:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >
> > There is no need to check if ret is non-zero, remove this
> > redundant check and just return the error status from the call
> > to mt9m114_write_reg_array.
> >
> > Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1416577 ("Identical code for
> > different branches")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/mt9m114.c | 6 +-----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/mt9m114.c b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/mt9m114.c
> > index 8762124..a555aec 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/mt9m114.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/mt9m114.c
> > @@ -444,12 +444,8 @@ static int mt9m114_set_suspend(struct v4l2_subdev *sd)
> >  static int mt9m114_init_common(struct v4l2_subdev *sd)
> >  {
> >  	struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> > -	int ret;
> >
> > -	ret = mt9m114_write_reg_array(client, mt9m114_common, PRE_POLLING);
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		return ret;
> > -	return ret;
> > +	return mt9m114_write_reg_array(client, mt9m114_common, PRE_POLLING);
> >  }
>
>
> any use for "client" ?

I guess the code would be on two lines in any case.  It looks like a nice
decomposition as is.

julia