linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: fsl-dpaa2: Fix multiple assignments should be avoided

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: <20171108094033.d2swiivinynlatlm@mwanda>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:40:33 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Joshua Abraham <j.abraham1776@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: fsl-dpaa2: Fix multiple assignments should be
 avoided

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:20:48AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:45:03PM -0500, Joshua Abraham wrote:
> > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
> > "CHECK: multiple assignments should be avoided"
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joshua Abraham <j.abraham1776@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/fsl-dpaa2/ethernet/dpaa2-eth.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fsl-dpaa2/ethernet/dpaa2-eth.c b/drivers/staging/fsl-dpaa2/ethernet/dpaa2-eth.c
> > index 0d8ed002adcb..384218946108 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/fsl-dpaa2/ethernet/dpaa2-eth.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/fsl-dpaa2/ethernet/dpaa2-eth.c
> > @@ -1661,7 +1661,8 @@ static void set_fq_affinity(struct dpaa2_eth_priv *priv)
> >  	 * This may well change at runtime, either through irqbalance or
> >  	 * through direct user intervention.
> >  	 */
> > -	rx_cpu = txc_cpu = cpumask_first(&priv->dpio_cpumask);
> > +	rx_cpu = cpumask_first(&priv->dpio_cpumask);
> > +	txc_cpu = rx_cpu;
> 
> The original code here makes much more sense, doesn't it?
> 
> Sometimes checkpatch is wrong :)

It feels like the majority of these multiple assignment warnings are
wrong.  I thought it would be a good idea at first but after looking at
a bunch of the patches it feels like we should just remove the check.

regards,
dan carpenter