linux-kernel - [PATCH] x86/perf/amd: remove set but not used variable 'active'

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

Message-ID: <20191026120813.5534-1-wanghai38@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Oct 2019 20:08:13 +0800
From:   Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
To:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <acme@...nel.org>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        <jolsa@...hat.com>, <namhyung@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     <x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <wanghai38@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH] x86/perf/amd: remove set but not used variable 'active'

Fix the following gcc warning:

arch/x86/events/amd/core.c: In function amd_pmu_handle_irq:
arch/x86/events/amd/core.c:656:6: warning: variable active set but not
used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]

Fixes: df4d29732fda ("perf/x86/amd: Change/fix NMI latency mitigation to use a timestamp")
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
---
 arch/x86/events/amd/core.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
index 64c3e70..b7f2bfb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
@@ -653,14 +653,14 @@ static void amd_pmu_disable_event(struct perf_event *event)
 static int amd_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
-	int active, handled;
+	int handled;
 
 	/*
 	 * Obtain the active count before calling x86_pmu_handle_irq() since
 	 * it is possible that x86_pmu_handle_irq() may make a counter
 	 * inactive (through x86_pmu_stop).
 	 */
-	active = __bitmap_weight(cpuc->active_mask, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX);
+	__bitmap_weight(cpuc->active_mask, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX);
 
 	/* Process any counter overflows */
 	handled = x86_pmu_handle_irq(regs);
-- 
1.8.3.1