[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b790e108-fa37-28bf-15c2-885ddb05572e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:23:57 +0300
From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: cgel.zte@...il.com, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
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 15:18, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> > 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?
>>
>
> There is only one caller. It should be folded into the caller and
> deleted. Then the caller could be made void.
>
Ah, I see. I've overlooked, that this function name starts with _ and
the wrapper just does `return _rtw_init_evt_priv();`. Interesting
approach...
I agree, that _rtw_init_evt_priv should be just renamed to
rtw_init_evt_priv() and the old wrapper should be just removed
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists