linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192u: Remove some set but not used variables

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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 16:07:35 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
Cc:     sylphrenadin@...il.com, c.cantanheide@...il.com,
        navid.emamdoost@...il.com, nishkadg.linux@...il.com,
        mst@...hat.com, stephen@...nnan.io, mchehab@...nel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192u: Remove some set but not used variables

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 08:07:44AM -0400, Wang Hai wrote:
> Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:
> 
> drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c: In function rtl8192_hard_data_xmit:
> drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c:905:6: warning: variable ‘ret’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c: In function rtl8192_commit:
> drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c:3418:6: warning: variable ‘reset_status’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> 
> Fixes: 8fc8598e61f6 ("Staging: Added Realtek rtl8192u driver to staging")
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c
> index fcfb902..bb28670 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,6 @@ static void rtl8192_hard_data_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
>  				   int rate)
>  {
>  	struct r8192_priv *priv = (struct r8192_priv *)ieee80211_priv(dev);
> -	int ret;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	struct cb_desc *tcb_desc = (struct cb_desc *)(skb->cb + MAX_DEV_ADDR_SIZE);
>  	u8 queue_index = tcb_desc->queue_index;
> @@ -915,7 +914,7 @@ static void rtl8192_hard_data_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
>  	*(struct net_device **)(skb->cb) = dev;
>  	tcb_desc->bTxEnableFwCalcDur = 1;
>  	skb_push(skb, priv->ieee80211->tx_headroom);
> -	ret = rtl8192_tx(dev, skb);
> +	rtl8192_tx(dev, skb);

Shouldn't we do something about an error if that function returns an
error?  Why are we ignoring it?

>  
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->tx_lock, flags);
>  }
> @@ -3415,7 +3414,6 @@ int rtl8192_down(struct net_device *dev)
>  void rtl8192_commit(struct net_device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct r8192_priv *priv = ieee80211_priv(dev);
> -	int reset_status = 0;
>  
>  	if (priv->up == 0)
>  		return;
> @@ -3427,7 +3425,7 @@ void rtl8192_commit(struct net_device *dev)
>  	ieee80211_softmac_stop_protocol(priv->ieee80211);
>  
>  	rtl8192_rtx_disable(dev);
> -	reset_status = _rtl8192_up(dev);
> +	_rtl8192_up(dev);

Same here, should that really be ignored?

thanks,

greg k-h