linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove unneeded 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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:09:21 +0300
From:   Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To:     cgel.zte@...il.com, Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Cc:     phil@...lpotter.co.uk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        straube.linux@...il.com, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Changcheng Deng <deng.changcheng@....com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove unneeded variable

On 11/9/21 14:53, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
> From: Changcheng Deng <deng.changcheng@....com.cn>
> 
> Fix the following coccicheck review:
> ./drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c: 66: 5-8: Unneeded variable
> 
> Remove unneeded variable used to store return value.
> 
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Changcheng Deng <deng.changcheng@....com.cn>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c | 4 +---
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> index e17332677daa..1b1c47f4a34e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> @@ -62,8 +62,6 @@ static void c2h_wk_callback(struct work_struct *work);
>   
>   static int _rtw_init_evt_priv(struct evt_priv *pevtpriv)
>   {
> -	int res = _SUCCESS;
> -
>   	/* allocate DMA-able/Non-Page memory for cmd_buf and rsp_buf */
>   	atomic_set(&pevtpriv->event_seq, 0);
>   	pevtpriv->evt_done_cnt = 0;
> @@ -72,7 +70,7 @@ static int _rtw_init_evt_priv(struct evt_priv *pevtpriv)
>   	pevtpriv->c2h_wk_alive = false;
>   	pevtpriv->c2h_queue = rtw_cbuf_alloc(C2H_QUEUE_MAX_LEN + 1);
>   
> -	return res;
> +	return _SUCCESS;
>   }
>   

Shouldn't it return just void then?



With regards,
Pavel Skripkin