linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ALSA: usb-audio: Don't store returned value and check for errors

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:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:00:37 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <musamaanjum@...il.com>
Cc:     Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, colin.king@...onical.com,
        dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: usb-audio: Don't store returned value and check for errors

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:36:41 +0100,
Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> 
> The returned value by create_autodetect_quirk isn't being used other
> than in the success check on next line. Remove the return value
> assignement. Check for error values instead of success check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <musamaanjum@...il.com>
> ---
>  sound/usb/quirks.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sound/usb/quirks.c b/sound/usb/quirks.c
> index 9e5e37eff10e..5ce5f4ecb9d0 100644
> --- a/sound/usb/quirks.c
> +++ b/sound/usb/quirks.c
> @@ -425,9 +425,9 @@ static int create_autodetect_quirks(struct snd_usb_audio *chip,
>  							USB_CLASS_VENDOR_SPEC)
>  			continue;
>  
> -		err = create_autodetect_quirk(chip, iface, driver);
> -		if (err >= 0)
> -			usb_driver_claim_interface(driver, iface, (void *)-1L);
> +		if (create_autodetect_quirk(chip, iface, driver) < 0)
> +			continue;
> +		usb_driver_claim_interface(driver, iface, (void *)-1L);

Hm, basically this change is only for readability (the code
optimization makes almost no sense), and the readability itself isn't
improved significantly by this change, either.

That is, I'm fine to take this, but OTOH, I see no compelling reason
to do so...


thanks,

Takashi