linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: gdm724x: Remove variable

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: <20190524065427.GB3600@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 08:54:27 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     colin.king@...onical.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: gdm724x: Remove variable

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:30:26AM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> The return variable is used only twice (in two different branches), and
> both times it is assigned the same constant value. These can therefore
> be merged into the same assignment, placed at the point that both
> these branches (and no other) go to. The return variable itself can be
> removed.
> Issue found with Coccinelle.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_usb.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

Your subject line needs a lot of work.

How about:
	staging: gdm724x: remove unneeded variable in init_usb()



> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_usb.c
> index d023f83f9097..8145ae2afba7 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_usb.c
> @@ -295,7 +295,6 @@ static void release_usb(struct lte_udev *udev)
>  
>  static int init_usb(struct lte_udev *udev)
>  {
> -	int ret = 0;
>  	int i;
>  	struct tx_cxt *tx = &udev->tx;
>  	struct rx_cxt *rx = &udev->rx;
> @@ -326,7 +325,6 @@ static int init_usb(struct lte_udev *udev)
>  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUM_SDU_BUF; i++) {
>  		t_sdu = alloc_tx_sdu_struct();
>  		if (!t_sdu) {
> -			ret = -ENOMEM;
>  			goto fail;
>  		}
>  
> @@ -337,7 +335,6 @@ static int init_usb(struct lte_udev *udev)
>  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_RX_SUBMIT_COUNT * 2; i++) {
>  		r = alloc_rx_struct();
>  		if (!r) {
> -			ret = -ENOMEM;
>  			goto fail;
>  		}
>  
> @@ -349,7 +346,7 @@ static int init_usb(struct lte_udev *udev)
>  	return 0;
>  fail:
>  	release_usb(udev);
> -	return ret;
> +	return -ENOMEM;
>  }

Again, you are getting _really_ close to the "churn for churn sake".
Maybe this is needed, but it's really a fine line...

thanks,

greg k-h