linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] habanalabs/gaudi: remove redundant assignment to variable err

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]

Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:05:03 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] habanalabs/gaudi: remove redundant assignment to
 variable err

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:12:10PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> The variable err is being assigned a value that is never read, the
> assignment is redundant and can be removed. Also remove some empty
> lines.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c b/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c
> index 9e4a6bb3acd1..22f220859b46 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c
> @@ -7379,9 +7379,6 @@ static int gaudi_hbm_read_interrupts(struct hl_device *hdev, int device,
>  			device, ch, hbm_ecc_data->first_addr, type,
>  			hbm_ecc_data->sec_cont_cnt, hbm_ecc_data->sec_cnt,
>  			hbm_ecc_data->dec_cnt);
> -
> -		err = 1;
> -
>  		return 0;
>  	}

Not related to your patch (which seems fine), but I always feel like
there should be a rule that function which return a mix of negative
error codes and either zero or one on success should have to have
documentation explaining why.

It's impossible to tell from the context here and neither of the callers
check the return.  :P

regards,
dan carpenter